RAB Call For ‘Charity’ Decision To Be Reversed

April 10, 2016

The Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda “condemns the decision to grant Preserve Marriage charitable status,” and called upon the Registrar General and/or Minister Fahy to “reverse this decision immediately.”

A statement from the group said, “The Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda condemns the decision to grant Preserve Marriage charitable status.

“The Registrar General and Charity Commissioners may have acted unlawfully with this hasty decision. We call upon the Registrar General and/or Minister Fahy to reverse this decision immediately.

“This action follows other failings of the government to act with the benefit of all Bermudians in mind, including their tabling of the Matrimonial Causes Act Amendment 2016 and the calling of a referendum on a Human Rights issue.

Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda April 10 2016

“Section 3[b] of the Charities Act 2014 requires that a charitable purpose must be for the public benefit. The Commissioners have published guidance under section 13 of that Act. This public benefit test must consider any actual benefits for society arising from the charity [e.g. educating people about the benefits of marriage].

“The guidance indicates that “any detriment or harm which is caused by a charity’s purposes” should be considered [e.g. denying people access to the institution of marriage, advocating against the human rights of others, and the stigmatization of an entire group that arises when they are singled out].

“The Charities Commission must determine whether the harm outweighs the benefit. If it does, then the public benefit test must fail. Based on Preserve Marriage’s public activity thus far, there is no long-term public benefit from their campaigning, which is also political in nature.

“The guidance also describes “forbidden purposes” as those which: “explicitly provide for some detriment or harm; are unlawful or contrary to public policy; or are of such a serious nature as to negate the benefit provided, cannot be beneficial, and consequently, are never charitable” [p. 32].

“Preserve Marriage defines its campaigning by its opposition to the rights of a protected group under the Human Rights Act 1981. The Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda asks the Charities Commissioners how they could, in good conscience, decide that this was for the public’s benefit?

“The guidance also discusses that an organization cannot be a charity if it has a political purpose, including: “securing or opposing any change in the law, whether in Bermuda or overseas; and securing or opposing a change in the policy or decisions of central government or local authorities or other public bodies, whether in Bermuda or overseas” [p.39].

“Preserve Marriage have operated a political campaign over the past several months through demonstrations, advertising, petitions about law-changes, and bringing in overseas speakers.

“In Preserve Marriage’s promotional materials, their intended purpose includes: ‘To inform the public about the truth of civil unions; to ensure legislation related to marriage in Bermuda is fortified; and to ensure that a few do not decide for the many.”

“Each of these objectives are clearly political in nature and have been campaigned for over the past few months specifically to oppose the Government’s consideration of same sex marriage and/or civil unions. The Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda asks the Charities Commissioners how they could, in good conscience, decide that their purpose was not primarily political?

“We acknowledge that Preserve Marriage does note on their website that people of all sexualities should be respected, but their activities and objectives do not foster respect for the LGBTQ [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer] community or a spirit of inclusivity within the broader Bermudian community.

“The Preserve Marriage campaign has been riddled with dog-whistle politics, such as the “Consequences to Redefining Marriage” handout which lists items that could be beneficial and supportive of the LGBTQ community as scare-tactic opposition to recognition of marriage equality.

“The Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda would again like to recognise the significant importance of the rights of LGBTQ Bermudians and residents to be respected and protected under the Human Rights Act. At best, Preserve Marriage’s advocacy has promoted hurtful heterosexist and transphobic rhetoric that has created significant mental and emotional anguish for the LGBTQ people of Bermuda.

“The Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda believes that Preserve Marriage would fail both the public benefit and the political purposes test. Their purposes are detrimental and outweigh any possible benefit. Indeed, they might arguably amount to a forbidden purpose.

“Further, their past statements and activities show an explicit desire to change our marriage legislation and to undermine Government’s own efforts to bring in civil union legislation. We urge the Registrar General and Minister Fahy to reverse the granting of Preserve Marriage’s charitable status.

“As always, the Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda remains committed to providing safer spaces for the LGBTQ [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer] community. It is made up of a diverse group of young Bermudians that are involved in many areas of other social justice advocacy and community work.

“There are no official spokespeople and all statements are written collaboratively. The Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda is not a charity and does not seek funding.”

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, News, Politics

Comments (137)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Unnaceptable says:

    So you can espouse your views but other can’t espouse their own.

    Democracy means all get to speak!

    • OMG!!!!!!!! says:

      Why called it a Rainbow? Look it’s nothing rainbow about what 2 grown A$$ hairy men are doing behind closed doors. The act is disgusting. I actually don’t even believe a book exist to describe what their doing. If you all were that serious you would have march instead of typing in the dark for you’re rights!!!!!!!!!

      • DP says:

        You’re an idiot.

      • steve says:

        Hey OMG I am strait and i have a hairy a$$,you wouldn’t believe some of the disgusting things I have done behind closed doors. You can imagine it(if u like) and you can find it in books and on certainly on the internet. Thing is, its none of your business.

      • Bermy expat says:

        You can’t even type with proper grammar. You’re the idiot.

      • OMG!!!!!
        You consider the act disgusting so DON’T do it. You seem terribly interesred in what other people do in their bedrooms: should we be concerned about your sexual behavior? Is it any business of ours what you do with consenting adults, between the sheets? Why the comments about men? Do you not have any objection to two women having sex? Many men don’t, not that I know whether you’re male or female. Maybe you should stop spending so much time thinking about how other people have sex and start thinking about what human rights equality actually means instead.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Your hatred is what’s disgusting here, as well as your complete lack of understanding of how things work.

      • Zevon says:

        And if I said what I thought about your stupid religion you would be offended.

      • Kevin says:

        It is quite clear you truly don’t understand or maybe don’t posess the ability to understand the simple issue that is at hand. They don’t qualify to be a charity and obviously those who granted must have a conflict of interest and should step down immediately.This whole issue is nothing but a right that should be in place not one that has to be fought for

      • LOL says:

        @OMG YOUR grammar is awful and YOU’re an idiot. Sort YOUR grammar fool.

      • JeSuisCharley says:

        OMG, try it. You might just find yourself liking it. (The biggest zealots are always converts).

    • @ unnaceptable, I am in total agreement with your comment, it really is amazing how the rainbow coalition want so many damn rights, but will stop at nothing to oppose those who don’t think like them.

      I think if we are going to live in a democracy, then bring it on and let see who is left standing.

      • Mike Hind says:

        As per usual, you are misrepresenting reality and trying to create a false equivalency between the two sides of this.

        Doesn’t your religion espouse honesty as a primary virtue?

        Or is it ok to be dishonest, as long as you think you’re right?

    • They aren’t objecting to them speaking freely. They are objecting to them being given the legitimacy of charitable status when everything they say and have done would seem to be in direct contravention of the requirements of the charities commission. They are free to continue speaking freely against equality, they just should not be allowed charitable status whilst they do so.

      I do wonder who is on the commission?

    • Mike Hind says:

      Here we go again.

      It’s not them “espousing their views”, it’s the fact that they think those views should apply to other people’s lives and happiness.

      They can have these views all they want. No one is saying they shouldn’t.
      It’s when they try to force others, through their attempts at “reinforcing legislation”, to abide by those views.

      There’s a massive difference.

      • Johnny says:

        You keep talking about human rights. All the while I never heard you fighting for racial equality. I guess you don’t have that problem. Or you don’t see it as a problem.

        • What?? says:

          If one must speak to all issues before one is allowed to speak on a specific issue why do you not have a problem with a group calling itself “Preserve Marriage” not speaking out on the issues of divorce or adultery? Surely those issues threaten marriage as much, if not more, then extending marriage to more people.

        • Rocky Noggin says:

          You clearly don’t know Mike Hind very well then.

        • Mike Hind says:

          As “Rocky” said, you don’t know me at all, if you’re making this claim.

          Seems to me that you’re just making things up to lash out against someone who has an opposing position.

          Maybe try honesty next time. It’ll be less embarrassing.

          Or would be if you weren’t a coward, making false, baseless, disgusting personal attacks against people while hiding like a worm behind the hood of a pseudonym.

        • Zevon says:

          I’ve seen Mike Hind speak out for racial equality on this forum, bernews.

    • Nasty European cultural habits.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Still with this nonsense?

        You’ve been shown to be wrong with this hateful bile you keep spewing, many, many times.
        Why do you keep posting these lies over and over?

      • Rocky Noggin says:

        You are seriously ignorant, bird

      • Zevon says:

        Nasty religious bigots.

    • Daylilly says:

      Providing the community the service of information and education is not the same as speaking out against any particular group of persons. Educating and informing the public about our current laws and the effects any potential legislative changes may have is a community service and over 9000 people agree.

      • Mike Hind says:

        MISinformation, miseducation and spreading lies, you mean…

        All the while, never giving a single valid, honest and real argument against marriage equality and, when they DO give a reason, it’s so easily proven wrong, it’s ridiculous. And yet, they have their surrogates, like “Daylily”, out here spreading the same old falsehoods, pretending it’s “Education” and “Informing the public”.

        Not once have they ever given an actual “effect” of any “potential legislative changes”.

        Not once.

        This is just yet another lie they are spreading.

        “Community service”? Spreading lies and hate isn’t “Community Service”. It’s EXACTLY the opposite of that.

        It’s sickening.

    • No, no, no, no …….

    • BLOW IN says:

      well done, you have just made a group of religious freaks tax exempt ,

  2. Its me again says:

    Charities act 2014 section 4(1) reads

    “A purpose falls within this subsection if it falls within the following descriptions of purpose”

    Subsection (b)

    The advancement of religion.

    I dont see how preserve marriage isnt about the advancment of the Christian agenda….

    • Family Man says:

      The advancement of religion in the same way The Nation of Islam is?

      • BLOW IN says:

        everyone needs a PRETEND FRIEND,

        • The Nation of Islam was birthed out of de era of hardcore white supremecy, just like de Black Panthers, AME Churches, B.I.U., P.L.P, N.A.A.C.P and any other Institution that avocates and promotes Black Empowerment.
          Dipstick

      • Its me again says:

        What about the nation of islam….

        You sound like you are close to being racist.

  3. I heart 441 says:

    Fahy is in no position to repeal this issue. He needs to work on his people skills with Bermudians.

  4. allinlove says:

    Respecting someone doesn’t mean you have to agree with their stance. Loving someone does not mean you have to agree with everything they do. We have to stop thinking that agreement is a stipulation for showing love and respect. Disagreement can be present with the absence of hate.

    • Mike Hind says:

      This isn’t about disagreement. It’s about the promotion of a denial of equal access to rights and privileges. That’s why this group was created.

      No one is demanding that they agree with anything. Just that they stop demanding that other people abide by the rules of their choice of religion.

      The Amish don’t agree with power tools, but don’t demand that other people don’t use them.
      Why can’t folks like Preserve Marriage be like that.

      Heck, they don’t agree with Divorce – which is FAR worse for marriages, by definition! – but they aren’t pushing for the right to be divorced to be taken away.

      This is about hate for one specific group and Preserve Marriage’s position is about denying that group equal access to rights and privileges. Period.

      • Johnny says:

        When will you start fighting for racial equality. You keep throwing the human rights card, but are you ready to fight for more important human rights or only the one that affects you (and a very small portion of the Island).
        Racial inequality affects over 2/3 of the population but we don’t see anywhere near the level of passion that you have in fighting for what is obviously more important to you.

        • Mike Hind says:

          You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You’re just throwing out accusations to try to denounce me, with no basis in truth or honesty or reality.

          Why don’t you address what I said instead of this feeble, sad and truly pathetic attempt at defaming me?

          Or don’t you actually have the courage to do that?

        • Mike Hind says:

          And, for the record, “Johnny”, this isn’t my fight. I’m not gay and I’m already married.
          I fight because it’s the right thing to do.

          As for it only affecting a small portion?

          What’s the cut off for denial of rights for you? How many people need to be in a disenfranchised group in order for it to be wrong, in your eyes?

          As for my “level of passion”?

          You don’t know me. At all. Don’t think that you can speak about me like you know me. Especially when you’re hiding beneath a hood.

      • Hey Dreamer, go on a farm and see how intellegent de animals are.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Now you’re just lashing out like a little kid, wailing and stamping your feet but ultimately making absolutely no sense at all.

          Nothing here makes any sense nor has anything to do with what I wrote.

          Opponents of Marriage Equality, I have to ask…

          Are you ok with knowing that THIS hateful idiot is on your side? Or is it ok with you when he spews this ridiculous nonsense because he’s on your side?

  5. Observer says:

    People should be able to express their views from either side of coin….

    • blankman says:

      This is not about expressing their views. It’s about being registered as a charity. That’s a very different matter.

    • Mike Hind says:

      And no one is stopping either side from expressing those views. At all.

  6. standing firm says:

    These homosexuals discriminate so much and they have the nerve to say that people discriminate against them…they can start an alliance, they can amend laws..But God forbid if a straight person wants to start an alliance or amend a law

    • blankman says:

      That’s not what is being discussed in the article. The question there is whether or not Preserve Marriage should be registered as a charity. It’s clear that it doesn’t satisfy the criteria in the law so why was it approved?

    • Kiskadee says:

      hey standing firm – if the straight person wants to start an alliance or amend a law that actively discriminates against other people, then no, we cannot support that. and where on earth do you get that homosexuals are the ones discriminating? against what?? good heavens.

      there is absolutely no difference between the fight for gay rights and gay equality and the civil rights movement. no difference.

      you can actually fire someone just because they are gay and you don’t agree with it, as the boss. that is LEGAL here on this island. dr. john stubbs worked tirelessly in the late 80s and then into the 90s to shepherd what became known as the stubbs bill through parliament in 1994. the stubbs bill abolished the law that made the homosexual sex act illegal, even in the privacy of one’s home. in 1994!! can you BELIEVE that it was that recent? shocking how backwards this island is. even the UN human rights commission has asked all countries to enact laws to protect gay rights.

      and it is absolutely the right of any adult to marry whom they choose. love is love. imagine if the situation was reversed and being gay was the ‘norm’ and you as a straight person couldn’t marry whom you wanted. it is that simple.

      i’m so embarrassed that in 2016 i live in a country who’s government will not do the right thing and legalize marriage for all consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. (you do realize, don’t you, that a biological woman who identifies as a man AND happens to be gay, as in attracted to men,, can marry a man here in bermuda, which though on the outside looks like a straight marriage, is not? so what’s the difference?) let people marry who they love.

      my children cannot BELIEVE what is going on over this issue – they don’t want to live here when they grow up because they cannot comprehend that the lawmakers not only allow this antiquated, discriminating viewpoint, they support it. shocking.

      • frank says:

        You can leave now on the. Next. Flight

        • Mike Hind says:

          Why should he have to leave?
          Or is fighting for what’s right the wrong thing to do now?

        • Kiskadee says:

          hey frank

          my family has been here 350 years.

          but thanks for the suggestion, frank…. after you, really…i insist…

      • HW says:

        Listen to some of what you said- I seriously doubt even you believe some of the statements you made.

        “It is absolutely the right of any adult to marry who me they choose.” That’s surely not what you actually believe and I’m certain you have some limits as to how far you would apply that statement.

        Also, this is NOTHING like the civil rights movement. Please tell me which gay people in Bermuda have been denied jobs, enslaved, institutionally discriminated against, denied entry into certain establishments, beat up for trying to read a book and get educated, or systematically discriminated against on a daily basis based merely on their appearance – something they could never hide even if they wanted to.

        • HW says:

          Should obviously say *WHOM* they choose

        • Mike Hind says:

          Just because your state of denial means that you can’t see it doesn’t mean that it’s not true.

          A denial of rights is a denial of rights. Just because you agree with this discrimination doesn’t mean it isn’t hateful.

    • Any heterosexual group is welcome to say what they want, can and have started an alliance and are actively trying to change the law to suit themselves. They are actively trying, through their actions, to deny others equality. Now, the charities commission has decided that these heterosexuals actions are in the best interest of the whole island despite their stated mission of denying others equality. They are now free to solicit money in the name of discrimination. The Rainbow Alliance is not trying to deny anyone their right to any thing, free speech included. They are objecting to a group whose stated goals are to deny equality to people they don’t approve of, being given the legitimacy of a charity. They are the antithesis of what charities are supposed to be and in my opinion, are an insult to every other charity that struggle every day to bring unity and inclusion to our community.

      • The Law of Nature supesedes any jacked up ideology.

        • Mike Hind says:

          What law is that?

          Don’t you get tired of being exposed as a small-minded bigot?

        • Onion Juice, there are any number of incidences of homosexuality in nature, in the natural world. It’s not an ideology.
          Have you ever heard the misquoted, ‘the lady, she doth protest too much!’?

    • Bermy expat says:

      You are actually an idiot. I want to say Terrible things to you bit they wouldn’t be approved. Get a clue.

    • Mike Hind says:

      What on EARTH are you talking about!

      Are you actually saying that straight folks can’t start an alliance? That’s ridiculous.

      This is EXACTLY what Privilege looks like.

      “How DARE that group that we don’t like think that they can do the same thing we can!”

    • Mike Hind says:

      And, it has to be asked… I know it won’t be answered…

      How are homosexuals “discriminat[ing] so much”?

      Seriously.

  7. LaVerne Furbert says:

    At least we know who that the directors of Preserve Marriage are Dr. Melvin Bassett, Gary Simons from Cornerstone Bible Fellowship, and Mark Hall from Word of Life Fellowship. Lawyer Kyle Masters is the secretary. Who are the directors of the Rainbow Alliance? Why do they remain nameless and faceless? Don’t they have the courage of their convictions? Just asking.

    • Verly says:

      Laverne, you are such a s@#t stirrer!! Remaining nameless and faceless doesn’t mean people don’t have the courage of their conviction. That’s a loose term you like to throw around a lot, who are you to challenge other people’s boldness? You know full well the Rainbow Alliance’s spokesperson has been publicly named on numerous occasions so what more do you want.

      • Its me again says:

        They are nameless and faceless.

        Why cant they show their faces?

        • Mike Hind says:

          …says someone hiding behind a fake name…

    • Mike Hind says:

      You want to talk courage of convictions! Try getting a Preserve Marriage supporter to actually defend their position! Try getting them to engage in an honest conversation. Try getting them to answer even simple questions. Try getting them to give even one defensible argument against marriage equality.

      Courage of convictions? It’ll never happen. Nothing but cowards when it comes to this issue.

    • Zevon says:

      Is Rainbow Alliance a registered charity Laverne?

    • Hmmm says:

      Isn’t this just a way of legitimising Melvyn and his cronies collecting monies from fools and getting paid….

      • Family Man says:

        Well, to be honest, there’s not likely going to be anymore duplicate payments from friends in the civil service so the money has to come from somewhere.

    • JeSuisCharley says:

      Ms. Furbert, I am not sure where you stand on Gay rights, especially marriage – perhaps you could let us know? In the meantime, I would point out that your mentor Dr. Ewart Brown has consistently championed Gay rights and I do indeed recall him being instrumental in pushing through several pieces of anti-discriminatory legislation in this regard and for this I thank him.

    • What?? says:

      LaVerne. Because people like you would work to make sure they lose thier privacy, their dignity, their jobs and their homes.I find it hard to believe, and disturbing, that at one time someone thought you were qualified and suitable to be a member of the Human Rights Commussion.

    • MFurbert says:

      LaVerne, with all the anti white propaganda you spread daily on certain FB pages, how could anyone take anything you say seriously?

      You love nothing more than to stir the pot and blame a certain group of people for all your troubles. I too cannot fathom how you were once thought of as a representative for human rights, the idea boggles my mind. You do nothing for the people of Bermuda, ANY colour, by living your life online and calling radio shows to espouse your bigotry. Just like giving children of struggling families free breakfast, you will find out that you were wrong on this one.

      luckily time is on this generations side.

    • steve says:

      Mrs Furbert
      Some people in the gay community choose to keep a low profile and/or remain anonymous because they do not want to risk hurt and humiliation of family members(and themselves) by a small minority of the (mostly) well meaning people that oppose their sexual orientation. Its a simple answer and i have witnessed such poor treatment and snide comments aimed toward my own parents having been raised with a gay brother. I hope this answered your question if it truly was a question and not more of the veiled derogatory rhetoric I observed during my youth. All the best.

  8. BLOW IN says:

    BERMUDA SPROUTS CHURCHES, but lacks a basic touch of humanity, that is why your island will not strive past next year , to many holy bigots

    • frank says:

      This is a sick island. Men want to be. Women. And. Women. Want. To be. Men how sick can a. Small. Island. Be

      • Mike Hind says:

        This is the ranting of an unstable person.

        Is this who we’re supposed to take seriously in this discussion?

      • L. Austin says:

        No different then the US where the men actually turn into women and the women actually turn into men. Bottom line is this…Homosexuality is not going away, neither is war, hunger and abuse of every kind. This is not an issue to be fought over, this is Gods issue to resolve and eventually HE will.

        Far too many “Christians” claim to serve god but don’t recognize the sinners (the alcoholics, adulterers, thieves etc) in their own congregations. Their clergy are more into politics and materialism then the Bible and the flock but God have a day reserved them Matt 7:21-23. Real servants of God do not need politicians, charity groups or other organizations to tell them what marriage is.

        Let gay folk be gay they too will have to answer to the Most High ~ Romans 1:26-28….

        • Mike Hind says:

          Thank you for this post of kinda support. I wish more folk were like you.

          Point of order…the “men” that “turn into women” are, and ways were, women. And vice verse.

          But I really appreciate the “live and let live” merge you’re putting out there. Thanks!

      • Some people may have interfered with by the same sex or were vulnerable at one point, but it is defenately not normal.

        • Mike Hind says:

          More hate-filled lies from you.

          Shame on you.

  9. Common Sense Talking says:

    Human rights? At what point are homosexuals going to stop labeling there cause as a human rights issue? Its like whitewashing a grave, its a good cover up but whats inside still stinks.

    • Mike Hind says:

      How is the baseless denial of rights to a group of citizens of this country, again, for absolutely no valid, defensible reason whatsoever, NOT a human rights issue?

      • mj says:

        @mike–how is it that you have so much to say on gay rights but very little if anything on any other subject, you seem obsessed!

        • alsys says:

          Hah! Mike has a lot to say about just about everything. Name one article about some form of discrimination that he hasn’t popped up on.

          *I always hate this, you never speak on blank but yet crap. Majority of the time, you are completely wrong but further than that, caring about issues is a competition sport. Which you prefer people to preface every comment with “I also suppport…”?

        • Mike Hind says:

          And this is exactly why.

          Because people like you and, up the page, “Johnny”, are willing to say literally any nonsense that pops into your head in a pathetic and cowardly attempt to shut me up and I got sick of it. I got sick of being accused of things I didn’t do by people without the integrity to sign their own name. I got sick of lies and dishonesty being spread by craven, hate-filled liars like you.

          But this issue is too important to stay silent on. When a group of people are faced with injustice, fueled by people like you who will continually spread outright lies and misinformation, then run away like roaches when the lights come on when faced with even the simplest of questions, I feel like I have to speak out.

          THAT is why I do this.

          So, how about you? Are you going to show the courage of convictions and come out from under your hood and show us who you are and actually stand up for what you believe and give us one valid reason to oppose marriage equality and then defend it with reality and reasonable arguments?

          Or are you going to continue to hide and take ridiculous potshots against people that are standing up for equality like the hateful, cowardly worm that you are?

        • Mike Hind says:

          Odd that you didn’t actually address what I said.

          But then, you never do, do you?

          Could that be because you know you’re actually in the wrong, but don’t want to admit it?

    • aceboy says:

      The Preserve Marriage Group is about to start a legal action against HP because they feel their human rights were abused. The irony of a group seeking to prevent human rights crying that their human rights, to deny rights to others, are being infringed upon is something I have no doubt you will ignore.

      • Daylilly says:

        Aceboy, I hope your right. Good for Preserve Marriage if they are seeking legal means to protect the rights to freedom of thought, expression and beliefs.

        Aren’t those same freedoms allowing you and others to be able to speak freely on these threads and any place else in Bermuda.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Surprise, surprise. Daylily shows up spreading misinformation and lies, all of which have been shown to be so repeatedly.

        • Daylily, they are not seeking legal means to protect their rights. Their rights are not under threat. Not one single right of theirs is under threat! They are seeking the legal means to discriminate against people they do not approve of. Be very clear about this: they have decided that they do not approve of something and they have decided that they and they alone, should have the sole right to deny that something. And now the charities commission has sanctioned their discrimination. Lets hope for your sake and the sake of others that support them in this open discrimination, that you are always on their right side and never end up being the something they decide to disapprove of. Then you might start to understand the real value of human rights.

    • What?? says:

      To lack of Common Sense Talking. How is the denial of a Government service based on an inherent characteristic not a human rights issue. How is the denial of equality under the law not a human rights issue? Are you going to defend your position with reasons or facts or are you going to be just another hit and run bigot?

  10. M.C. Beauchamp says:

    Where is the Human Rights Commission? Since when can a group declare a Fatwa against Human Rights? Preserve Marriage gaining charity status is like a dog wearing a coat; it’s only for show.

  11. love wins says:

    Well said Rainbow Alliance. #lovemustwinyesyes

    The aging bigots of Bermuda are outnumbered by the younger generation / millenials.
    The old thinking and teachings of some churches will continue to witness declining believers in talking snake stories.
    Ignorance, hate and bigotry has no place in Bermuda. Strange how so many descendants who fought do hard for freedom from slavery, the right to marry another race, the right to sit upstairs in a cinema, the right to vote are the people who would deny love to same sex couples. You are repeating the sins of the colonialists.
    The use of religion to foster this hate and bigotry is only confirmation to the wider community of where the true evil lies.

  12. JeSuisCharley says:

    There are several churches I abhor, a political party whose views I do not embrace – but I would never approve of banning them. Rainbow Alliance, STOP the double standards now before you become as abhorrent and hypocritical as CURE, another one that under your logic should be told to shut up…

    • Charley, no one is trying to stop preseve marriage voicing their objections. We are objecting to them being given the ability to operate as a charity. If they were at risk of losing their rights because gays were going to be allowed to marry then maybe they would have a case but no heterosexual person or couple is going to lose anything because a gay person is allowed to get married. Do you really believe that a group whose ONLY reason for existence is to deny others equality should be given the legitimacy of charitable status? They claim they do not hate anyone but actively working to deny equality to others simply because you don’t like the way they, as consenting adults, might have sex is about as hateful as it comes. Should a group like this be given charitable status?

  13. Sandgrownan says:

    Utterly disgraceful. The preserve Marriage group are colloidal a*******. This should be repeated endlessly.

    Anyone associated with PM needs to be publicly ridiculed and shamed at every opportunity.

    • Daylilly says:

      Sandgrownan people preserving marriage and christian values are already being tortured, beheaded, targeted and bullied the world over, so you’re a little late.

      Your comments are hypocritical and cruel. SSM proponents demand rights to make an unlawful action (SSM) legal and yet deny others the ability to advocate and stand for maintaining the existing laws of this land.

      What is disgraceful is the intolerance of those saying that they promote tolerance.

      • What?? says:

        Daylilly. As per usual nothing but delusional garbage.

      • serengeti says:

        The people being tortured, beheaded, targeted and bullied, are having those things done to them in the name of religion (usually Islamists), not in the name of SSM. The same Islamic laws that lead to the atrocities you list also require the death penalty for gay people in many countries.

        So when you try to pretend that opposing Preserve Marriage aligns someone with those who behead Christians, you’re just lying.

        The intolerance that you talk about comes from a belief system that dates back to the stone age. It has no place in 21st century morals and laws.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Complete nonsense. Come on.

      • Daylily, you really need to stop trying to convince people that any one is trying to prevent your group from voicing their opinions or that they are in any kind of danger physically or in terms of their rights. They are not. They are as free to express their opinions, as hateful as they undoubtedly are, whenever and wherever they wish. Your lot are not trying to maintain existing laws they are trying to introduce new legislation, new laws, that will allow them to openly discriminate against people whose conduct they do not approve of.
        We do not believe they should be allowed to operate as a charity when their mandate is to promote discrimination. It is YOUR group trying to make SSM illegal by changing the law.

        And if you take even a glancing look at the people torturing and killing your good christians world wide you will see that it is other good religious people who don’t like the way christians conduct themselves, believing that everyone should live as they believe. Sound even vaguely familiar? Gays are usually the victims of the hate crimes you describe, often at the hands of good religious people ‘defending’ their beliefs.

  14. Takbir Karriem Sharrieff says:

    Looked up the Definiton of Queer,and the shocking endless definitions,that came up would frighten me away from ever joining ,that community.I would,nt print my name either,shameful devils}S.Laverne Furbert ,I have greatest respect for you and others like you who are not afraid to stand and be counted.These annonomyous devils who hide behind pen names should remain underground,nameless,hidden,and out of the sight of the public eye ,like the slimy slithering snakes that they are.Same sex ,behaviour,period, nothwithstanding,these freaks wanting the legitmacy of marriage like normal healthy people defies logic and every standard of decency imaginable.So-Dumb,and Go-now/to hell.

    • serengeti says:

      And you base your opinion on a religion started by a violent savage warlord. We don’t live under sharia law, and your religious beliefs are irrelevant to the laws that we pass in the modern world. Many muslims do not believe in freedom, or freedom or expression.

    • What?? says:

      The Preserve Marriage website states that “uncompromising stand is to demonstrate love and not focus on anyone’s personal preference or to manage gay rights”. Is this an example of that “uncompromising stand”. Will anyone from Preserve Marriage denouce this homophopic bigot? How about you LaVerne? Will you denouce that hate filled rethoric of Takbir Karriem Sharrieff?

    • Mike Hind says:

      I agree with you on one thing… The folks here spreading lies and making personal attacks while hiding behind their hoods ARE slithery, slimy snakes.

      Problem is, they’re on your side!

      The rest of your post is the usual ranting of someone who thinks other people should have to obey the rules of his religion. Which is what is indecent here.

    • Family Man says:

      Our resident spokeman is always good for a laugh. Just keep him away from sharp knives.

    • Ed Case says:

      Hell is an imaginary place created to scare children.

  15. I heart 441 says:

    Mike Hind,
    What percentage you think are non-Bermudian of Rainbow Alliance, and what percentage of Preserve Alliance are Bermudian?

    • What?? says:

      What’s your point?

      • I heart 441 says:

        If you are smart like me, you will understand my point.

        • Ed Case says:

          Clearly not that smart if that’s all you are concerned about.

        • What?? says:

          Humour me. What’s your point?

          • I heart 441 says:

            The reality of it is that over 50% of those associated with Rainbow Alliance are not Bermudian. Now I have nothing against expats, but how would they feel if expats moved into their country of birth and petitioned to change the norm of the land!

            • Mike Hind says:

              Oh, so it WAS a xenophobic “They ain’t Bermudian so they don’t count” thing.
              Got it.

              Also… do you have evidence of this 50% number?
              I’m not saying you’re wrong, but that’s a pretty big claim to make with no evidence.

              Also, wouldn’t most people be ok with people moving to their country and trying to make it better? I know I like it when that happens. Don’t you?

            • Zevon says:

              So you would not be in favour of an expat church minister holding political maches then?

            • What?? says:

              Let’s ask black South Africans if they resent outsiders for challenging apartheid.

              BTW Interesting number, 50%. Does it have any basis in reality? Where did it come from?

    • Mike Hind says:

      Why are you asking me? I’m not a member of the Rainbow Alliance.

      And why does this matter?

      I am a Bermudian that supports Marriage Equality. I speak for me and not anyone else, so please leave me out of any xenophobic “They ain’t Bermudian, so they don’t count” nonsense, if that’s where you’re going.

      If you’re NOT going there, I apologize for the assumption… but would you care to explain exactly where you WERE going?

  16. ron,b says:

    evil has arrived on our shores

  17. Coffee says:

    I pledge my financial support to this new charity . If I could support it in any other way , I will gladly avail myself .

    • Mike Hind says:

      Of course you do.

    • Come Correct says:

      Refuses a furlough day but will willingly give 10% of their paycheck to their imaginary friend.

  18. Coffee says:

    The word rainbow which is such a beautiful word , has been hijacked by a movement that has nothing to do with the original meaning of the word . Much like they are trying to do with the word marraige .

    Let us as a community make sure that Preserve Marraige stands as a bulwark charity to ….. Preserve Marraige !

    • Mike Hind says:

      The original meaning of the word?

      Rain… Water that falls from the sky.
      Bow… Because it is curved like a bow.

      That’s the original meaning. It’s YOU that is trying to hijack it, just like you and this hateful group are trying to hijack the word marriage in this pathetic and Ill-fated attempt to continue unjust discrimination against citizens of this country.

      As usual, “Coffee”, you’re on the wrong side of history.

      Your usual spreading of misinformation from under your hood is par for the course.
      I await the normal lies and personal attacks in your response.

  19. Mike Hind says:

    Notice that not once have the supporters of Preserve Marriage actually engaged with anyone.

    Instead, they’ve chosen to lie, make personal attacks and then run away when asked even simple questions.

    When your position is so weak you have to resort to dishonesty and these sorry of nasty tactics, maybe you should take a good look at your position.

    I know if the ONLY arguments I had to back up my position were outright lies, I’d change that position pretty quick!

  20. Coffee says:

    Words of wisdom from the late USSC Justice Scalia …. One of the four justices who argued against SSM , five voted in favor …. One vote separated …

    “The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their ‘reasoned judgment.’ These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.”

    • Mike Hind says:

      Yes. Those judges were right.

      As was pointed out to you the last time you tried using this quote that was fed to you, Justice Scalia was wrong, both in this quote and in his position against marriage equality.

      These has been absolutely no reason given – not one that stands up to even the lightest scrutiny – to oppose marriage equality.

      Justice Scalia’s argument here – based on the falsehood that marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman, which it very obviously hasn’t…. Evidence of this can be easily found in the Christian bible – boils down to “Well, that’s how we’ve always done it.”
      That’s not an argument. “We’ve always practiced injustice” isn’t a reason to continue doing it!

      Or is it? Am I wrong? If so, why?

  21. Coffee says:

    Words of wisdom from the late SCOTUS Justice Scalia ….

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

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

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

    • Mike Hind says:

      All this was addressed the last time you pasted it on a thread.

      Repeating already-debunked misinformation and lies won’t make them true, “Coffee”.

  22. Coffee says:

    Preserve Marraige will save the essence of marraige in Bermuda . It is a charity worth supporting .
    The best way forward will be by plebiscite !

    This case is about power in several respects,” Scalia wrote in his dissenting opinion on the Windsor case, arguing the courts should not decide laws on gay marriage. “It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case.”

    • Mike Hind says:

      Weird how you just keep posting these already debunked things over and over and refuse to engage in any way otherwise.

      It’s almost like you don’t actually have an argument!

      As mentioned, Scalia was wrong.

      Preserve Marriage is wrong.

      You, “Coffee”, are wrong.

  23. Disappointment says:

    it makes my blood boil that there is such silly actions taken.

    If Bermuda does not update itself and accept EVERYONE then this island should be closed to expats, non-heterosexuals and then let international business leave the island.

    I am tired of this languishing and trying to appease everyone. For goodness sake just make a decision and follow through on it.

    Preserve Marriage should not have charitable status.