Maxwell Burgess On Same-Sex Marriage Appeal

August 2, 2017

Preserve Marriage has fought for Bermuda; now it’s time for Bermuda to fight to preserve marriage,” Maxwell Burgess said, adding that he did not want Preserve Marriage’s “hard work to go in vain, as they have faithfully educated the people of Bermuda about this topic and hence decided to lodge a community appeal when the previous Government refused to do so.”

Mr. Burgesss said, “I could not sit by when Mr. Pettingill stated 3 years ago as Attorney General that no one would sensibly try and bring same-sex marriage to Bermuda because the law was in place, and then watch him become the very person to do that which he said could not be done.

“Neither could I sit by after I saw the Human Rights Commission [HRC] fight tooth and nail to bring same-sex marriage to Bermuda, especially when they are fully aware that the European Convention which applies to Bermuda’s Human Rights Act has ruled in over 6 cases that same sex marriage is not a Human Right.

“It has become undoubtedly apparent to the general public that the HRC had such tunnel vision to bring same-sex marriage to Bermuda at all costs, that they have lost sight of the fact that they represent all of Bermuda, including those who want to preserve marriage.

“And third, I could not sit by and watch the Charities Commission approve OUTBermuda as a charity when same-sex marriage was illegal; and then deny Preserve Marriage charity status on the basis that they are now ‘unlawful’ because same-sex marriage is now legal and that they allegedly fail the public benefit test! This demonstrates tremendous bias!

“Everyone needs to note that the Charities Commission comes under the Registrar’s Office. If they were not a benefit to society and were more of a detriment, why did the Registrar’s Office allow them to intervene for them to represent public interest?

“It is very concerning that persons who support traditional marriage are being treated like this by the Charities Commission and the HRC; entities that should represent us all in spite of our different views on marriage.

“The recent election brings forth the striking reality that the topic of same-sex marriage was at the forefront of how persons voted. We witnessed historic OBA strongholds fall to the PLP by a wide margin and many OBA MPs who won, did so with minimal margins.

“It is apparent that the community took notice as to how previous MPs voted for MP Wayne Furbert’s Bill last year to fortify marriage in Bermuda: in which 85% of PLP MPs voted in favor of the Bill to OBA’s 35%.

“The Bill was passed in Parliament, but was blocked by the Senate in which 80% of OBA Senators voted against it. PLP also made their position public in their platform to state that they wanted marriage to be between a man and a woman, hence supporting the Community Appeal that has been lodged to the Court of Appeal.

“It is for these reasons that I feel obligated to lead the charge for the community to appeal. It is obvious to me and many in the community of this Island that the agenda of a few is attempting to override the will of the country as a whole. Preserve Marriage has fought for Bermuda; now it’s time for the Bermuda to fight to preserve marriage.”

click here same sex marriage

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (184)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Tracey says:

    This is pure ignorance. This is 2017, just because you feel some way about two individuals of the same sex who like each other does not give you any right to try and dehumanize them. You are disgusting.

    • SNS says:

      LIKE!!!

    • blankman says:

      That needs to be repeated.

    • Daylily says:

      Tracey. Actually Mr. Burgess said absolutely nothing about his feelings on individuals who like each other. His comments were with respect to our country’s right to define marriage. Many people want to eliminate religion it doesn’t mean they hate all people who believe in God.

      • Mike Hind says:

        The only people currently trying to redefine marriage are Preserve Marriage.

        The law of the land states that same sex couples can get married.

  2. QC says:

    Exactly what is he asking for?

  3. Quinton Berkley Butterfield says:

    For the life of me, I can never understand why grown men and women are sitting around worried about, thinking about and making mental images of what other grown men and women are doing with their private parts…. and they call homosexuals perverts…..

    • HW says:

      For the life of me, I can’t understand why YOU would say THAT! why would you assume people think about or even care what adults do behind closed doors?

      this is a clever ATTEMPT at trying to divert the discussion. nobody is saying people can’t or even shouldn’t be able to love who they want to love and have intimate relations with persons of the same sex.

      what we are saying is that marriage between 1 man and 1 woman serves a purpose to society and it should be reserved for that undeniably unique relationship.

      • PBanks says:

        HW, what is the purpose to society of any given marriage of one man and woman? I know what the purpose is to the two individuals that are involved. But society as a whole? What is provided?

        • HW says:

          When marriage is uplifted then people are encouraged to come together and remain together for the benefit of raising any kids which may result from their union.

          clearly not all marriages result in children as people either choose not to have kids or can’t have kids due to fertility issues or age. however this exists for the majority and even those unable to have children can still reflect the uniqueness of 2 sexually complimentary beings, being united together. a true commitment to the ideals of marriage also ensures people practice fidelity.

          while none of us are perfect and I appreciate everyone makes mistakes, the reality is that when people are faithful to marriage and each other, everyone benefits. that’s the ideal we should strive towards, even though we may not always get there.

          as we’ve seen people’s respect for the institution of marriage decline, we’ve seen families and society decline as well. this is largely why we have so many broken homes and fatherless children.

          it’s quite clear to me as I work with children, teens, and families that our social problems are rooted in this.

          • Daylily says:

            Very true

          • Mike Hind says:

            See? This argument is “marriage is for procreation” with the addendum of “but when straight people do it, they don’t have to have kids”.

            Needless to say, this poster’s argument is both false and ridiculous.

          • What?? says:

            So. Marriage without children is okay for straight couples but the inability to have children precludes gay couples from marriage?

      • Quinton Berkley Butterfield says:

        Exhibit A

      • Quinton Berkley Butterfield says:

        Like a moth to a flame

      • Alpaca says:

        what purpose does a marriage between 1 man and 1 woman serves a purpose to society? if that’s the case then what about single people? hmmmmmmmmmmmm :\

        • HW says:

          your question confuses me. we’re talking about marriage’s purpose for society. single people are not married and therefore are categorized as exactly that- single people.

          I’m very clearly not saying single people are purposeless, if that’s what you’re inferring. I’m talking with regards to marriage and therefore only married people would qualify to be a part of that discussion.

          • dwwevewv says:

            just because you are not married does not mean u are single.

      • Just the Tip says:

        your diverting the topic, reproduction which is what you are implying is not a requirement of marriage.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Note that this person doesn’t actually say what that purpose to society IS.
        They just say that it serves a purpose…

        This is nothing more than a thinly veiled “Procreation is a stipulation for marriage” argument and has been debunked many, many times.

        It’s important to note that this poster will NOT actually answer questions or elaborate on what he means. This is because the INSTANT you apply logic or any sort of sense to these arguments, they completely fall apart.

  4. the truth says:

    This is absolutely disgusting! Peserve Marriage wasn’t doing anything to constitute as a charity. If it was, that means every single church in this country should be a charity.

  5. stunned...(at the bigotry) says:

    max, we havent heard from you in a good while. let’s keep it that way. find something meaningful in your life and make a positive difference. this stirring up of hatred, divisiveness in the midst of a country desiring to heal and grow together is just mean-spirited.

  6. A Chap called Vanz says:

    Change your name to Preserve Life and your focus on reducing the killings on the island.

    There’s too much hate already and not enough love.

    • JohnBoy says:

      Well said!!

    • BDAGIRL says:

      To A Chap called Vanz, you are so right. We need Maxwell Burgess to try and convince our young men about preserving life and how precious life is. Please Maxwell Burgess stand on the steps of City Hall and reach out to these young men who are killing each other instead of worrying about who loves the same sex person.

    • Sickofantz says:

      Like

  7. JohnBoy says:

    Who took him off the shelf and dusted him off? And why???

  8. seriously? says:

    Oh FFS. These homophobes. Really – same sex marriage is what you’re worried about? That’s your priority? Not gang violence, racism, jobs, education, pensions, healthcare? you’re worried about what 2 consenting adults in love want to do? I am so sick of this…. what are you and PReserve Marriage and Mr Furbert really afraid of? Get with the times. Equal rights for everyone!

    • HW says:

      the same flawed logic you just used can be applied to your position. with the gang violence, failing education system/lack of resources, healthcare, and other social issues, why on earth would you have advocated for 2 people of the same sex to marry?

      obviously persons are able to be passionate about more than 1 issue at a time, as I’m sure you’re capable of doing also. MANY involved in preserve marriage spend a great deal of their time- some even have dedicated their lives- to working with the less fortunate, at-risk youth, working in the co-ed facility, helping ex prisoners to find employment and giving them life-skills, ministering to the elderly, and helping restore and enrich marriages and families.

      for what it’s worth, while you clearly don’t agree there are many who believe MOST of the social issues you’ve highlighted are a direct result of the breakdown of the family unit. THAT is why we believe traditional marriage is so important. as we’ve strayed from that foundation as a society, chaos and social ills have followed.

      so I believe we need to get back to the blueprint and not go further away from it.

      • PBanks says:

        How does preventing gay people from marrying each other lead to strengthening the family unit?

        • HW says:

          you choose to view it as ‘preventing gay people from marrying’. I have stated that I simply believe we should be promoting this unique union of 1 man and 1 woman to the exclusion of all others.

          I believe that union benefits the family unit. not all marriages result in children as I’ve acknowledged previously. but zero same sex unions have ever or will ever directly result in the 2 partners having a biological child.

          are you denying that the male and female union is entirely unique? It’s clear that it is and I believe for many reasons it should therefore be promoted.

          this doesn’t mean that others who don’t fit that category are lesser, simply different.

          • Just the Tip says:

            If it was just about children might have a point but as there are tons of rights and privaliges that are given by the government you point is wrong and discriminatory

          • blankman says:

            Why would you want to prevent two people of the same sex from marrying? It won’t have any impact on you. After all, I don’t see anyone suggesting that hetero people will have to enter into same sex marriages. So why the objection?

            And since you seem to be implying that allowing same sex marriages will have a negative effect on opposite sex marriages please explain what those negative effects will be.

          • dwwevewv says:

            there have bin grate strives in genetic engineering and maybe in the near future u can make a child with the DNA of 2 male or 2 females or even more people so i would not say never since is a wonderful thing.

          • Mike Hind says:

            How will same sex couples getting married have any effect on someone else’s marriage and their ability to have kids? How will it stop the promotion of “1 man and 1 woman” relationships?

            Do you think that allowing same sex couples to get married will create more gay people?

            And why bring up “having a biological child”?

            Do you think that marriages make children?
            Or that they HAVE to make children?

            If so, the problem is that you don’t understand what marriage is.

          • What?? says:

            Explain how allowing gay couples to marry has any impact at all on hetrosexual marriage. Straight couples will continue to marry in the same numbers they do now. The will continue to procreate in the same numbers they do now. What possible difference can it make?

      • Alpaca says:

        Who knew gay people had the power to prevent the strengthening of the family unit?!

        “I’m sorry sarah but we have to get a divorce?”
        “why?”
        “I saw two guys holding hands and it destroyed my will as a husband and father our…our.. family unit is gone..”

        • blankman says:

          Sorry you can’t get your divorce – those two guys weren’t married so your claim is invalid.

  9. Let there be hope says:

    To bad this same group does not fight against gang violence. The people who are actually destroying our society. Not same sex couples who love each other and are hurting no one.

    • HW says:

      Too bad you’ve made an assertion for which you have ZERO evidence. this is at the forefront of the news because of the recent case and those who have desired to redefine marriage. that doesn’t mean other issues are not being worked on- as they have been for years.

      many of us are involved in combating this and helping to restore families on a daily basis. if you choose to ignore and deny this, that doesn’t give your argument any merit whatsoever- it just means you’ll simply remain uninformed.

      • Mike Hind says:

        “…who have succeeded in redefining marriage to include those previously baselessly excluded…”

        Just fixing the post.

  10. Jus sayin says:

    Wait let me get this right. Preserve Marriage, are you by chance feeling discriminated against by the HRC and Charities Commission? Are you feeling oppressed and singled out? Are you being denied something you rightfully feel should be allowed? Hmmmm

    • Quinton Berkley Butterfield says:

      To the privileged, equality feels like oppression…amirite??

      • HW says:

        to those who hate truth, the truth feels like hate.

        • Quinton Berkley Butterfield says:

          Did you make that one up all by yourself? You’re awesome!

          • HW says:

            as I’m sure your comment was entirely original too, right? clearly not.

        • A Chap called Vanz says:

          You can’t handle the truth!

        • Mike Hind says:

          Note here how this poster tries to take a quote and twist it… and then attacks the person he’s responding to for using a quote.

          And notice the sinister implication that HE is on the side of truth, even though he NEVER posts things that are based in truth and, in fact, disappears when this is pointed out.
          Also, the attempt to portray his opponents as hating, while admitting and attempting to dismiss his position’s own hate.

          Remember, they are trying to deny people equal access to rights.
          They are now trying to change the law to discriminate against certain Bermudians and they have NEVER offered a reason to do so that they are willing to defend.

          This is exactly the sort of slippery, sinister game they play.

          • DanielSun says:

            U gots 2 chill Mike Hind!!!!!! U say hw attacked the guy. FGS that’s some drama queen bs. Hw literally made a comment. U took it as an attack. What was an attack? Guys like u will forever seen themselves as a victim if u choose to view things that way! Must be scarey living in your world. U must flinch when people reach to shake ur hand cause u think they trying to rob from u inna?

            • Mike Hind says:

              And here we have “DanielSun” demanding silence of opponents to his point of view and then spewing some macho gibberish about how it wasn’t an attack, then making some weird “you’re scared of everything” attack.

              He may want to do a little reading about what the word means, as, in conversation, making a point about the person rather than what they said is an ad hominem or “personal attack”, which was the context I used it in.
              I obviously wasn’t using it to mean a physical attack.

              This is the level of desperation to which they’ve sunk. They refuse to even engage in civil conversation.

    • blankman says:

      But they are oppressed – they’re afraid that they’re going to lose their right to discriminate.

    • Daylily says:

      Looks like Preserve Marriage is being denied something the HRC and Charities Commission’s mandates allow. Particularly the HRC whose purpose is to advocate for the rights of philosophical beliefs and religious beliefs etc. not only the ideals they hold as politically correct or valid in their own world view.

      PM is using the HRC own yardstick to measure what they say their values are.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Note here that he doesn’t say what the thing they’re being denied IS!

        This is yet another content less post pretending to say something.

  11. NaturalLaw says:

    Like Maxwell said, the European Convention which applies to the BDA HRA, determined that same sex marriage is not an human right.

    Human rights originate in Natural(Divine) Law as does man’s law. In nature, such interactions go against the Laws of nature, so no, Natural Law doesn’t protect same sex marriage as it isn’t an human (god given) right. (in a nutshell)

    Try as you may, the Law of Nature supersedes man’s law. Civil unions is where it all should have stopped. In a “democracy”, such as the one here in the Bermuda “state”,the will of the many is supposed to outweigh the will of the few. Our will is against SSM, Maxwell and the many are aiming to reverse this SSM decision.

    • really says:

      Marriage is hardly a natural act. Get a grip on yourself. Marriage is a man made event.

      Democracy does not give you the right to trample on, dehumanize, or limit the rights of minority groups.

      You are the evil here trying to impose your will to the detriment of others. What are you going to do in 5 years time when the world is still the world and there are a bunch of same sex marriages in Bermuda…are you going to welcome the couples as fellow human beings with open arms or ostracize them? Are you evil?

      • SNS says:

        EXACTLY!!!

      • Daylily says:

        The notion that every minority is automatically disenfranchised is incorrect. Beautiful people, rich people, really smart people are all minority groups and in Bermuda white people are a minority.

        This is not about dehumanizing any individual. This SSM agenda is not about equal love, as Masha Gessen says it’s about re-ordering society. It’s redefining a lot more than just marriage. There are social, moral and health repercussions that do adversely affect the entire society.

    • jo co says:

      The decision by the ECoHR you are referring to is based on intra-European politics. Nothing more. If it claimed same-sex marriage as a right, then multiple European countries that are bound by ECoHR rule would be in violation of said ruling, as they have civil unions/partnerships legalized, not same-sex marriage.

      The ECoHR requires jurisdictions to ensure that all States subject to its rulings have appropriate legal recognition in place for same-sex relationships. Bermuda has neither, therefore since Bermuda’s Human Rights Act includes both a preamble stating it is bound to the decisions of the ECoHR and sexual orientation as a protected class, Bermuda’s marriage laws were both in violation of the ECoHR decision in Oliari and discriminatory.

      Furthermore, what is being proposed by PM and WF would weaken the primacy of the HRA. There is no point having a HRA if it does not have primacy over other legislation. This leads to the question, which minority group would be next to have human rights protections revoked or prevented from being extended to them? Additionally the question also creates the following: what new carve out from the HRA would the LGBTQ+ community face when this oppressive majority decides on another ‘right’ they don’t like the LGBTQ+ community having?

      • What?? says:

        Very well said. This is an attack on the HRA and as such should worry everyone who believes that individual rights need to be protected.

        • therock says:

          “This is an attack on the HRA and as such should worry everyone who believes that individual rights need to be protected.”

          This is the problem, there are many, who, having faced a very similar battle 50 years ago, oppose equality for all. “They got theirs, so screw everyone else, especially the gays”

      • Daylily says:

        The problem here is not about carve outs to the HRA but what was misleadingly carved in. The 2 words & a comma (sexual orientation,) were never intended to bring SSM. Also the ECtHR in Oliari never said all contracting states have to have SSM or marriage type benefits for same-sex couples. If they did then the many Eastern European countries would be in violation.

        What they did say is that the government should test the will of the people and that the judiciary should NOT decide because marriage has deep rooted cultural, etc ramifications.

    • stunned... says:

      I am confused…in nature, can you confirm if there are marriages. if there are, please provide examples. if there are not and you are basing laws on nature, then should humans be getting married?

    • PBanks says:

      Is the term ‘Natural Law’ part of the Bermuda Constitution? Or any constitution?

      And even if the separate-but-equal terms of Civil unions is your fallback, why didn’t PM push for it?

      And, piggybacking on what ‘really’ posted, the concept of marriage isn’t natural at all, so why not take marriage and all its legal workings and benefits off the table?

    • Pamela L F says:

      How about equal access to government services? If the government provides certain services, licenses for example, which then allows for certain benefits and or responsibilities to the recipients, is it not discrimination to deny specific individuals access to those same services just because it offends someone elses religious sensibilities or triggers their ‘ewww’ response? Government issued licenses should be available to all equally. Or perhaps car licenses should be restricted to men only. I’m sure the Saudis could give you chapter and verse about how bad it is for society to have women driving. The majority is not always right.

      • HW says:

        this is an incredibly flawed and shortsighted ‘logic’ you’ve applied here.

        using that same logic, I can then say that government charges duty when I brought back my TV from a shopping trip overseas, but they didn’t charge my neighbor duty on the book he bought from away.

        I’m going to sue the government for discrimination based on your flawed logic.

        the purpose for marriage to be upheld by the government was to promote stable family units. this doesn’t mean they discriminate (at least, not in a bad way) against other family units but merely that they recognize the unique benefit of one over the other for society as a whole.

        • Reuben says:

          Your logic is the flawed one as the charge you talk about are applied to every one, if your neighbor had brought back a TV as well they too would have to pay duty on it just like if you had brought back a book you would have any duty. So your own example is flawed, but you know that because you wanted it to fit the your narrative.

          • Daylily says:

            Reuben. HW is correct, if that TV was to be sold by a vendor or fulfilled a special purpose, i.e. Americas Cup, etc., duties may shift to fulfill certain purposes and benefits as it pertains to the government and therefor the perceived greater good.

            • Reuben says:

              It is not give the context of this thread and this article. Stop trying so hard to twist things.

          • Hw says:

            My example is not flawed at all you’ve just misunderstood it. The law is applied equally to all. The TV and books in my example represent the different relationships- 1 provides society with unique benefits while the other does not. The fact the government chose to recognize and promote one over the other does not mean the other is being discriminated against.

            • Reuben says:

              it flawed cause it is two different items with two different purposes to them. and are treated differently under the law but equally to every one. now if your example had been you bring in a tv and your neighbor bring in a flat screen you might have had point. but your example does;t cause you want it to be different so it fits your narrative which is wrong and discriminatory.

              • HW says:

                You’re still not following. We’re talking about 2 different types of relationships. I’ll use your own quote so maybe it will help you: “2 different things with 2 different purposes. And are treated differently under the law but equally to every one.”

                • Reuben says:

                  but we are not talking about two different types of relationships. We are talking about marriage under the law and how it was being denied to a group of the population. Again you are twisting things in an attempt to fit your narrow narrative.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  So, you ARE saying that the ability to have children together is, in your opinion, a requirement for marriage.

                  You are wrong.

                  Thus, your argument is incorrect and can be dismissed?

                  • HW says:

                    where did I say that? I did not.

                    • Reuben says:

                      You imply it every time you post, so yes you never say it out and out but you do imply it over and over again and are still wrong about it.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      Oh, you’ve skirted around it so that you can deny it, but that is the message.

                      What else could you possibly mean?

                      Your point, such as it is, is that, because gay people can’t have children together, they shouldn’t be allowed to get married.

                      Dress it up how you will, but that’s the bottom line.

                      And it’s wrong. It is incorrect.

                      Unless I’m wrong and you’d like to explain what you DO mean and you’d like to offer a reason – one that you’d be willing to defend – why we should change the law and stop gay people from being allowed to get married…

        • therock says:

          “…but they didn’t charge my neighbor duty on the book he bought from away.”

          Maybe your neighbor is a former or present MP, therefore exempt from paying any import duty.

      • One Who Escaped says:

        OMG! You’re really comparing human rights to paying duty on a television??? That alone should end this rediculous convrsation!

        • HW says:

          take a break and stop with the feign outrage. I was comparing the 2 merely for the purpose of illustrating a point.

          and again, marriage is not a human right.

          • Mike Hind says:

            But it DOES convey rights to people and denying access to those rights for absolutely no reason IS against the Human Rights Act.

            Push this “it’s not a human right” thing all you want, but you never seem to address THIS fact.

            Why is that?

            Or do you actually HAVE a reason why we should change the law to deny people access to these rights?

            Would you care to share that reason?

    • Lualaba says:

      Marriage is nothing but a civil union….. a marriage thtbtakes place in a church is a civil union blessed by the church…

    • Huh? says:

      Natural law? Homosexuality occurs in nature in more than 1500 species other than man. Appears Natural Law is fine with it, seems man’s law needs to catch up…

    • blankman says:

      “Such interactions go against the Laws of nature”???

      Hate to tell you this but there are over 500 species of animals that engage in homosexual acts. But only one that is homophobic. So guess which one goes against the laws of nature/

      BTW – you lost all credibility when you equated Natural Law with “Divine” law – not everyone believes in your god (or any god for that matter) so attempting to force people to live their lives according to the terms of your religion is unethical at best.

      • NaturalLaw says:

        The most High then, since god(a verb) is an incorrect word to use describing the Creator, whether you are Muslim,Christian,Jewish or what have you.

        It all has nothing to do with religion as Divine/Natural Law existed before religion. Natural Law governs the movement of the planets, stars, gravity et al as well as our existence on this prison planet. We all have a Creator whether you believe in one or not.

        Natural Law or Divine Law is the basis of all law whether you know it or not. Go ask any local Freemason. The Divine Architect set in place rules that govern nature. Man and woman, two ends of the same pole, (polarity).

        In nature, homosexuality is an aberration and not common as one may try proclaim. Animals and humankind cannot progress in a homosexual environment. Where will the children come from? Cloning? A test tube?
        It is unnatural and goes against natural Law. No one is telling anyone how to live their lives, but the SSM crowd( a minority) shouldn’t impose its wishes on the majority of us. And we are the majority, make no mistake. Homosexuality is in the minority around the world.

        Civil unions, so that you all can have legal rights ( property etc) is where it should have stopped. You cried that,” oh without certain rights, the relatives can kick me out of house,once my homosexual partner dies!”, well civil unions would have solved that. But no, it morphed into SSM and we, the people do not sanction legislation supporting it and we, the majority will push back and remove it.

        In a healthy democracy, the majority overrules the minority, why isn’t of working with regards to this issue.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Nothing in this post is true… or even sane.

          Nothing he has said is backed up with any sort of evidence,

          This is nothing but a religious argument, which, as we all know, is invalid, because it isn’t ok to demand that other people follow the rules or tenets of your religion, is it?

        • Mike Hind says:

          And in a democracy, the minority MUST be protected from the oppression of the majority.

          This poster does not seem to know what democracy is.

        • fu says:

          “We all have a Creator whether you believe in one or not.”

          No we don’t…whether you believe it or not :)

          ” No one is telling anyone how to live their lives, but the SSM crowd( a minority) shouldn’t impose its wishes on the majority of us.”

          Yes, you and many others are. You need to stop and mind your own business.
          The majority has no right to impose its wishes on a minority…one of the tenets of a democracy.
          The majority didn’t want to abolish slavery…according to you, you’d agree with that.
          Strange.

        • rumsoak says:

          Maybe it is natures way of cutting the population .

  12. Cow Polly says:

    Substitute the word “slavery” for “SSM” and you, Max, will see why it is so important for a minority group to be supported, even if it is against the will of the majority. How quickly you forget. And hiding behind the European Convention is just a cop out, people should open their hearts and not be so mean spirited. We all know that regardless of the law or religion, love is love and should be enjoyed by all. Oh! and for all of you that are fixated about the ‘act’ itself, it goes on a lot more in heterosexual bedrooms than you want to believe – do you want to prevent those who participate getting married as well?

    • Portia says:

      SSM in no way should be compared to slavery…not even close. To suggest so is insulting to those who lived through slavery and still grapple with its historic legacy today.

      • Cow Polly says:

        How so Portia? please explain

      • Double S says:

        Slavery hasn’t ended…it is still a practice throughout many areas of the world…so i think you post is disrespectful to the people who actually experience slavery as of today…

        • Cow Polly says:

          My intention is not to disrespect those persons who have experienced or are still experiencing slavery. My intention is to draw attention to the fact that a minority group are being judged and denied their civil rights and the right to happiness by a majority who do not derive any disadvantage from granting them those same rights to which they enjoy. The irony is that the majority are the offspring of a group who also suffered prejudice and were denied their civil rights by a majority. I was simply trying to give the PM readership a comparison to which they might relate to and thereby understand. I am at a loss how else to cut through the prejudice that clouds their judgment.

      • Lualaba says:

        you can easily compare SSM and interracial marriage… both of which the churches were the driving force to oppose !!!

        • HW says:

          this is demonstrably false.

          • Just the Tip says:

            It actually isn’t and there is proof of it but would you like to offer you proof counter to that point?

          • fu says:

            “this is demonstrably false.”

            Not at all. Religious people, and people of colour are the first to oppose equal rights for all.

          • Zevon says:

            Well demonstrate it then. Because to most people it sounds very true.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Note here that he says “This is demonstrably false”… yet doesn’t actually demonstrate!

            Again, this is the sort of “fact” that they offer to back up their claims.

            • HW says:

              A correct interpretation of the Bible shows that interracial marriage is perfectly acceptable and even something to embrace. There are interracial marriages in the Bible.

              Has ‘the church’ been wrong on this issue? Well it’s hard to categorize the church as 1 unit, as if there aren’t a whole host of opinions on this and other topics. The church is made up of people and people are imperfect, that’s why we have a standard outside of ourselves who determines what’s best for all.

              Anyway look up who led the challenge against the ban on interracial marriage in the state of California. You might be surprised.

              • Mike Hind says:

                Annnnd here he doesn’t actually say anything or demonstrate anything.

                Hey, HW, how about offering us a reason that we should change the law to bar same sex couples from getting married?

                • HW says:

                  what on earth are you on about? I was addressing a post directly.

                  BTW on what basis do you claim this moral high ground mike? in your worldview we’re all just random bags of biological material floating around in a purposeless, unguided universe.

                  what is your foundation for any system of morals? I’m sure you have them, and you’re probably a great guy outside of this context. but literally every statement you’re making regarding how people should be treated is, due to your worldview, completely arbitrary and irrelevant.

                  • therock says:

                    “literally every statement you’re making regarding how people should be treated is, due to your worldview, completely arbitrary and irrelevant.”

                    Likewise….do you understand that?

                  • Mike Hind says:

                    Notice here that “HW” doesn’t actually answer the question. It’s just a distraction tactic so people don’t notice.

                    For example: when did I claim the moral high ground?
                    When did I state my worldview?

                    And check out the last bit, attacking me with no basis in reality.

                    As for how I’m saying people should be treated?
                    It lines up with what “HW” claims is HIS worldview…
                    I believe that people should be treated equally and not discriminated against for no reason.

                    The problem is, “HW” has an agenda and it’s one that supersedes the “worldview” he claims to follow.

                    Just look at how he refuses to offer and defend a single reason why we should change the law to remove people’s right to get married.

                    Not once has he offered one. Not once. And he continues to twist and turn to try to avoid doing so.

                    Why?

                    Easy. He knows there IS none.

                    None that he can defend. None that doesn’t involve absolute and complete hypocrisy.

                    We HAVE to ask ourselves: How can we support a position that has absolutely nothing backing it up?

  13. Sandgrownan says:

    Educated Bermuda? what a condescending sack of hate.

  14. PBanks says:

    The problem is that he’s declared several falsehoods that are taken as gospel by PM supporters.

    He’s used terms like fortifying marriage, which continues the misguided belief that current marriages between heterosexual couples are under some kind of threat.

    No current marriage is going to be negatively impacted in any form if people of the same sex get married.

    And frankly, when it comes to why people voted PLP over OBA, same sex marriage wasn’t in the top 5 reasons why. Pathways, Airport, Jobs, and others.

    What I’m curious about here is that PM has lobbied hard with Vote No Twice; PLP declared that they support equality except for marriage (ie No/Yes). Will PM adjust their message?

    • Portia says:

      “No current marriage is going to be negatively impacted in any form if people of the same sex get married.”

      That’s not true. Many people in the world have lost their businesses and jobs simply because they support traditional marriage. That negatively impacts the whole family.

      • A Chap called Vanz says:

        I wonder if Minister Furbert would allow gay couples to rent his apartment advertised on Airbnb??

      • Cow Polly says:

        Again, substitute ‘mixed race marriage’ for SSM and then re-read your statement. See how bigoted you sound? If those people have lost businesses and jobs simply because they support traditional marriage then they shouldn’t be bringing those beliefs into the workplace. There is no place for them nor beliefs based on race, religion, sexual orientation etc. etc.

      • PBanks says:

        That’s the other bizarre term.
        ‘Supporting traditional marriage’ is being used to define those who don’t think gay people should get to marry each other. It’s a misused term. Or, at least add “only” to the phrase to give it the proper context?

        I imagine most LGBT folks are all in favour of ‘traditional’ marriage.

        Anyway. Nobody’s lost their job because gay people married each other. They may have lost their job because they took a public stance that negatively impacted the business they work for (or in the case of that woman in Kentucky, refused to carry out a job she’s paid to do, because of a religious stance – for the record that should have been handled better by all sides).

      • really says:

        Reaching a bit there Portia.

      • Mike Hind says:

        And here we have “Portia”, a regular, promoting complete falsehoods.

        No one has lost their business or job for supporting “traditional marriage”. They have lost these things because they broke the law by discriminating against people.

        This is NOT evidence that other people’s marriages are affected by Marriage Equality.
        The folks that lost their businesses – and I apologize for the capital letters – BROKE THE LAW!

        Not to worry, though. “Portia” has a long history of posting lies and then running away.

        We can dismiss this post as the indefensible fabrication that it is.

      • What?? says:

        No! If there is any such case they lost their businesses because they engaged in an illegal act.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Notice that “Portia” hasn’t responded to this (but has posted elsewhere since then).
        The only reason for this is that they know that they have been proved wrong.

        As you read these threads, you will see this happen again and again.

  15. Hurricane says:

    Maxwell Burgess trying to stay relevant.

    Bye, Falicia!

  16. nerema says:

    I think PM should lobby for MPs to have to declare whether they have engaged in infidelity whilst married. This could be added to the Furbert Bill. Make it a criminal offence to fail to disclose having an affair to voters. A Register of Infidelity could be set up, updated once a year. All in the interests of “preserving marriage” and long-held traditions.

  17. really says:

    Perhap marriage should be banned..What !!!!?????

    wait, just throwing this out there. Thinking outside the box so to speak.

    Marriage leads to wealth creation for a small contained unit against the sacrifice of sharing with the whole community. Greed and selfishness.

    Marriage is based on a point in time perception. People change. It is cruel to be locked into something where you suffer mentally, physically because of societal perception

    Marriage destroys community, marriage creates greed , selfishness and causes pain…..

    Is marriage one of the root causes of single parent families.. Perception was that A would stay with B if you had a child…now A and B are scorned……whereas if a community is raising a child, the child would have more.

    Like I said just throwing a few thoughts out there…Not necessarily my view but interesting nonetheless.

    • Cow Polly says:

      Trying to preserve marriage for only a specific group may well backfire. There are examples of heterosexual couples applying for civil unions to support those who are denied a marriage licence. Over time marriage may very well become the minority form of legalizing a bond between two people, sort of like church weddings against beach weddings and registry offices. If you really want to preserve marriage then be inclusive of everyone, then no one will ever challenge it.

    • PBanks says:

      Sounds like something from Brave New World, but heck. What would happen if government got out of the marriage business?

      • Just the Tip says:

        You would lose a lot of rights and privileges

  18. Unbelievable says:

    Maxwell, you are irrelevant and in 20-30 years, history will still judge you as such.

    • HW says:

      Right. Because you can see the future. and because all developments and changes in societies have always been progressive, throughout human history. *sarcasm*

      • Just the Tip says:

        Using slavery, the women rights movement, interracial marriage as reference points we can clearly see where this is going and how it will be view in history

        • HW says:

          3 issues. We’re those the only social developments in human history? Why do you assume this falls into the same category?

          • HW says:

            *were

          • Reuben says:

            No they are not the only social developments but they are the one relevant to the topic and i don’t assume they are all in the same category cause they all deal with minority groups and their rights being denied.

  19. Citman says:

    When are you all going to stop the bullying because people DON’T agree with you. You call people homophobic because they want to hold on to marriage since we have known it for over 400 years in BDA and because you want to change it less than a year so everyone in Bda is now homophobic. GIVE ME A BREAK!

    • really says:

      Nothing wrong with disagreement. Where the wrong exist, is ACTIVELY trying to prevent minority groups the same rights as you benefit from.

      • HW says:

        This is ridiculous. So you’re saying that people shouldn’t be permitted to follow where they believe truth leads..? Even if persons believe that traditional marriage is what’s best for society, according to you they should have no say in the discussion.

        when you make ‘tolerance’ your god, you become a slave to foolishness.

        • Zevon says:

          That might be why I’m becoming intolerant of some of the ridiculous ideas that PM comes out with.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Look at THIS ridiculous little bit of nonsense!

          “So you’re saying that people shouldn’t be permitted to follow where they believe truth leads..?”

          If it involves hurting other people? ABSOLUTELY!

          How can anyone argue that they should be “…permitted to follow where they believe truth leads…” when it actively discriminates against people for absolutely no reason?

          “Even if persons believe that traditional marriage is what’s best for society, according to you they should have no say in the discussion.”

          NO! They SHOULDN’T have a say in other people’s relationships!
          If someone believes that “traditional marriage” is what is best for society, then they should have “traditional marriages”. What they DON’T get to do is tell one group of people that they aren’t allowed to get married for absolutely no reason!

          This is how twisted logic gets when one is trying to rationalize discrimination.

          • HW says:

            Whose definition of ‘hurt’?

            How are people being ‘hurt’? Because their relationships are not being promoted and celebrated in the same way?

            • Mike Hind says:

              I’ve answered this question from you already.

              Baselessly discrimination hurts people.
              Denying people equal access to rights for absolutely no reason hurts them.

              No one is asking you to promote or celebrate anything. Just stop trying to hurt people by treating them as less worthy of being treated as equal human beings! That’s it.

              I can’t believe you actually questioned whether refusing to allow couples that love each other to get married actually hurts them!

              Do you REALLY not get what you stand for?

    • fu says:

      ” so everyone in Bda is now homophobic. ”

      Not everyone, you certainly are though, Citman

    • Mike Hind says:

      Not here that this poster ignores reality and attempts to promote the idea that this is about simple disagreement and that calling people “homophobic” is somehow incorrect.

      As has been explained many, many times, this isn’t about disagreement. It’s about the actions of this group, and it’s supporters, in their attempt to continue to deny people equal access to rights and privileges.

      But this fact is conveniently ignored.

      • MPP says:

        “The actions of this group” are the result of what they believe to be true and best for society.

        You disagree about what is true and best for society and would advocate other actions.

        You saying “this isn’t about disagreement” makes no sense.

        What you ARE saying is that people should be allowed to mentally disagree with you but their actions should agree with you, since you’re right anyway. That’s not how convictions work.

        • therock says:

          “You disagree about what is true and best for society and would advocate other actions.”

          Yes. You’re the only one who thinks that your bigoted ideas are good for society. Your wish to discriminate against a segment of society, that has no effect on you, reveals the truth about you. You’re petty, jealous and hateful…why is this? who hurt you so much that you feel the need to retaliate against people you don’t even know?

        • Mike Hind says:

          Let’s look at this ridiculous bit of nonsense!

          Notice it completely ignores my point, while actually making it!

          It admits that this group IS taking action, but tried to dismiss it because they have “convictions”. Then it tries to create equivalence on both sides, accusing his opponents of doing the same thing.

          Here’s the problem with that: only one side’s actions actually discriminate against people for absolutely no reason! Only one side is actively trying to hurt people and deny them equal access to rights.

          They keep spewing this “best for society” line, but notice they never actually say WHY it’s best for society. They never say HOW.

          We’ve asked, many times. There has never been an answer.

  20. Citman says:

    The height is ignorance is to state that to preserve marriage is hate. That’s disgusting! Agreement does not equal hate. Get over it!

    • fu says:

      “The height is ignorance is to state that to preserve marriage is hate. ”

      You can’t handle the truth, they are a hate group..

  21. Freshair Fiend says:

    He’s mistating the EU senior courts’ position – they are not saying “equal marriage is not a human right” … they are saying that the cases brought before them still had to exhaust their avenues in the national courts before hopping to the EU level. Very different.

  22. Kevin says:

    Burgess, go crawl back under the rock you just came out of …no one wants to hear from a washed up politician who wants to get 2 minutes of media coverage

  23. Rocky5 says:

    Mr. Burgess is laying groundwork for PLP to give Preserve Marriage Charity status & Furbert/No SSM law to be passed by PLP and then they’ll give Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons a knighthood as they know that she knew if she made her ruling in favour of SSM, Conservative PLP would win election and Furbert/No SSM law would then pass!!!!!!!!!!!!

  24. Kevin says:

    so you saying Burgess wants to join the PLP along with Wayne=Jamal and kim and i thought young and the restless was fun to watch

  25. Bdarock says:

    Let’s be very clear about something . Preserve Marriage didn’t educate anybody about anything on this topic , because there are no legitimate reasons to oppose ssm . Their simply repeating their religious based objections doesn’t add truth to their nonsense . Preserve Marriage’s sole purpose is to oppress a group of citizens . They provide no value at all to modern society and they certainly don’t deserve recognition as a charity . For the record , I am heterosexual , and happily married more than 25 years .

    • James says:

      Maybe you willfully ignore facts so you missed the educational piece of what they were doing.

      You know, similar to how you seemingly missed the educational piece on the difference between *their, there, and they’re*

      • Bdarock says:

        Firstly , I have read an enormous amount on this topic . My opinion is well founded in reality not hype . Secondly , read my original comment more carefully . There isn’t a damn thing wrong with it .

      • Zevon says:

        Er James, made yourself look a bit silly there with that “their, there and they’re” comment.
        You owe Bdarock an apology.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Notice here that “James” doesn’t actually point out what the “educational piece of what they were doing” actually IS.

        Instead, he chose to try to attack someone for their spelling…

        This is a contentless post attempting to defame an opponent for something irrelevant.

      • fu says:

        “You know, similar to how you seemingly missed the educational piece on the difference between *their, there, and they’re”

        WTF are you going on about, boy?

        • Mike Hind says:

          No need for this. Rise above and show respect.
          Behaving like this just lets them distract by playing the victim.

          • HW says:

            I sincerely apologize. It was uncalled for to begin with and in rereading the post more carefully I acknowledge my own error. Serves me right for taking a dig at someone. Again, I was wrong and apologize.

      • Daylily says:

        So true

    • HW says:

      You obviously drew that conclusion long beforehand.

      Speaking of education, educate yourself on the difference between ‘THEIR, THERE, and THEY’RE’ first, and then perhaps you’ll be taken more seriously.

      • Zevon says:

        Not you as well.

      • Mike Hind says:

        And here we have “HW” repeating the personal attack instead of addressing the point.

        Note that he, also, doesn’t point out the “educational” aspect of Preserve Marriage’s campaign.

        One has to ask why this is…

        • MPP says:

          LOL! These debate judge posts are hilarious.

          How are you detemining what the content of every post should be? These are internet comments, not dissertations full of fully formed arguments.

          • Daylily says:

            LOL!!!! Agreed. Was wondering why Mike is always trying to play comment thread psychologist, debate judge or name caller. 3 modes of operation!

            • Mike Hind says:

              Notice the ad hominem here.

              “Daylily” never actually responds to people or answers questions about the things he posts, but when someone tries a personal attack, he’s right there to back them up with some “witty” comment.

              If you don’t believe me, just ask him to elaborate on something he posts. There will be an exodus from that conversation so fast it will make your head spin.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Notice this post! The poster has a long history of support for Preserve Marriage and that support shows up as weak attempts at defaming posters who point out the flaws in their arguments, and then running away, refusing to answer even simple questions.

            Note here he admits that they don’t actually have fully formed arguments and that they are just “internet comments”. We have to ask ourselves: What does this even mean?

            Is he actually saying that it’s ok to post lies and misinformation because they’re “internet comments” and not “dissertations”?

            I think we all can agree that this is desperate nonsense posted in an attempt to distract from the fact that Preserve Marriage and its supporters have no real argument and have offered no reason that they’re willing to defend for changing the law, something they vehemently disagreed with just earlier this year.

            • MPP says:

              Para 1: Ad Hominem… made funnier by how many times you accuse people of it.

              Pars 2: No. You keep dismissing people’s comments as incomplete/invalid since they’re missing something you’ve arbitrarily determined should have been fleshed out in that comment. As if they ran afoul of some agreed format.

              Para 3: Hilarious! I don’t think even you believe I said that.

              Para 4: You’re free to keep up the Internet Arbiter of Truth schtick but I’m not fooled or impressed.

              • Mike Hind says:

                Note here that he decided to make anothe ad hominem (you keep making them, I’ll keep using the phrase) instead of, you know, offering an argument for changing the law…

                Wonder why that is…

      • PBanks says:

        Actually, he/she is using ‘their’ in the right context.

  26. Navin Johnson says:

    Give it up….no one care…making a fool of yourself Maxwell…..

    • LOVE WINS says:

      Maxwell and Wayne are two sad human beings. Love Wins and may every person enjoy the right to marry the person they love no matter their sexual orientation.

  27. Citman says:

    The ignorant responses and derogatory remarks you make about Maxwell and others that support traditional marriage is why the people of this country is so against it. You think you can bully people into silence. Well… the contrary is happening. Until you accept that Bermuda has a foundation of moral and Christian principles you will continue to alienate yourself from the majority of the country.

  28. fu says:

    ” Until you accept that Bermuda has a foundation of moral and Christian principles you will continue to alienate yourself from the majority of the country.”

    The number of single parents, children born out of wedlock, alcoholism, and the bigotry, displayed by some Bermudians…like Citman…is overwhelming.
    Citman, perhaps you should clean up your own house before spewing what you think is moral and just and expecting everyone to live by your bigoted and hateful ways.

  29. Navin Johnson says:

    once and idiot always an idiot Maxwell….

  30. imjustsayin says:

    ‘Preserve’-to keep alive or in existence; make lasting. Marriage between a man and a woman is not gonna disappear,so why are you supposed to be educated people still using that terminology? Oh yes FEAR,that is how religion controls the masses. SMH!

  31. Shutthemdown says:

    Why are you chasing the word “marriage”?

    If civil unions give you all the same rights as a married couple then why are you chasing the word.

    This is only because you ssm people really have a hate for what a marriage represents.
    The hate is truly from the ssm community.

    And I could care less even if you manage to usurp the word “marriage”.

    But I am calling it what it is.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Because a. Civil unions DON’T offer the same rights b. Civil unions aren’t recognized everywhere and c. There is absolutely no reason that folks shouldn’t be allowed to call their marriages what they are.

      The hate isn’t from the LGBT community, it is coming from the folks using every excuse in the book – for example, arguing that wanting to call a marriage a marriage is really “hate for what marriage represents”, when that is obviously completely ludicrous, as what they’re trying to do is share in what marriage represents – to deny people equal access to rights and privileges afforded by that legal construct called marriage.

      What marriage represents is two people who DON’T have familial rights getting them.
      That’s it.

      Anything else is a personal view of it and should have no bearing on someone else’s life.

      Unless I’m wrong and you’d like to point out how and why?

  32. Mary says:

    So much for emancipation Maxwell

  33. Citman says:

    Fu you – I take your comments as truth they hit a nerve. To call me a bigot because of what I stated about Bermuda having a moral foundation is quite concerning. It’s obvious you know LITTLE about the society that surrounds you.

    • bee says:

      WTH are you talking about? you think “Bermudian culture” is black and religoius extreme? take a seat and look around.

    • Cow polly says:

      If it looks like a duck and sounds like duck it is a duck. Or in your case a bigot. I would suggest you look up the word on dictionary.com and read the definition. You will then understand why that word is being used in this thread. Quack, quack

  34. fu says:

    “To call me a bigot because of what I stated about Bermuda having a moral foundation is quite concerning. ”

    I call you a bigot because you are. You advocate for discrimination against a segment of society. You’re a bigot, I’m sorry you don’t like that…as they say, the truth hurts.

    It’s obvious to me that you have no empathy for your fellow Bermudians. I support your right to feel that way, but I don’t support your belief that you can force your, so called, moral values on other members of society.

  35. Mike Hind says:

    And here we have another Marriage Equality “discussion” where the Preserve Marriage supporters try to make a case, but are quicklY exposed as vacuous mouthpieces, spewing the same oft-debunked nonsense and then running away when called on it.

    Not once have they even TRIED to explain why they wan to change the law and redefine marriage, after YEARS of demanding that everyone else does it. After years of denouncing exactly what they are trying to do here.
    How many times did we hear the bizarre “You can’t change the law to redefine marriage because it’s the law” or “redefining marriage is wrong”?

    Isn’t it weird how it’s NOW ok to try to fight the law?
    Isn’t it odd that NOW it’s ok to want to redefine marrage?