Premier Cannonier: No Same Sex Marriage

June 19, 2013

“I can assure you that under my leadership this is not about same sex marriage, and under my leadership that will not happen,” Premier Craig Cannonier said at a press conference yesterday [June 18].

Minister Bob Richards also addressed the matter, saying that the Human Rights Amendment has nothing to do with marriage, as marriage is dealt with in separate legislation.

“We have a Marriage Act,” said Minister Richards. “So if anything was going to be done about changing the ability of people to get married, of the same sex, it would have to be done to the Marriage Act not to the Human Rights Act.”

On Friday [June 14] the amendment to the Human Rights Act to ban discrimination based on age or sexual orientation was approved with MPs from both sides of the aisle voting in favour of it.

During the session PLP MP Wayne Furbert brought forward a proposed change to the amendment trying to specifically exclude it from pertaining to marriage.

The motion was defeated with all the One Bermuda Alliance MPs and three Progressive Labour Party MPs [Walter Roban, Walton Brown and Michael Scott] voting it down by a margin of 18-12.

During the debate Attorney General Mark Pettingill — who has been criticized by the Opposition for his comments about religion — commented on civil partnerships.

“My own personal view is this, that for a gay couple not to have rights under the law of survivorship is an abomination,” said Mr Pettingill. “We are going to ultimately, in my view…everyone knows I am a pretty liberal AG…we are going to have to look at how we address that particular issue with regards to people’s rights.

“Other countries had civil partnership acts and so on. So at least we are able to address that people who have been in co-existing relationships for many, many years. And we have people in those relationships in this country who have adopted children, let’s not kid ourselves.

“Those are the types of of rights we are going to have to consider, that I certainly am considering having conversations about, and we have to have that type of consideration,” said Mr Pettingill.

Laws surrounding the matter around the world vary. Some nations have civil partnerships, some nations have legalised same sex marriage [such as Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Spain & parts of the USA] while at other end of the spectrum a Ugandan lawmaker proposed an anti-gay bill which recommended the death penalty.

Read More About

Category: All, News, Politics

Comments (69)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Articles that link to this one:

  1. No “Moral Disruption” From Same Sex Marriage | | July 12, 2013
  1. martin Gass says:

    If it is not going to Happen (gay Marriage) during his leadership (craig’s) then it is time to get him out of office ! I for one will never spend one more penny in any bussiness of his ! This amendment is irrelevant as unless your in the bedroom with a gay couple to know they are Gay ! you are still protected as a person it does nothing !!! political hug wash!

    • Time Shall Tell says:

      So because he doesn’t support the belief that you share on marriage, you’re willing to overlook any other potential good he may offer for the country as a WHOLE? Very selfish….

    • hollywood says:

      Martin gass is a ***** jus shut your gay *** up bo one gives a flying *** about you.. u wanna marry a man then take that gay *** to england because if i see any gay *** around my child im turning **** **

    • CANNABIS love says:

      YES it is political crap. All it did was drum up support and slap you in the face again. In the end the bill was a waste of energy and time. Now lets get on to more interesting things like the decriminalization of cannabis.

      Maybe after a few PUFFS all the gays will turn back to male & female love. Then again some of you will need more then a few puffs.

    • I stopped supporting Mr. Cannoniers business when Buzz started taking over, because there is next to no one that is Bermudian that works for them, but then I found out that it was not Mr.Cannoniers decision that put Buzz into the service station.

      It came directly from the Esso station heads, so this gave me a whole different perspective of what I felt towards Mr.Cannonier, so thus I now go to his service stations because I realize that there are Bermudians that work there that need our support in keeping them employed.

      So like wise with the Premiers stand on gay marriage, if he votes for it, I will definitely boycott his business, along with any other politician that decides to vote that way, so for a person who is in favor of gay marriages and want to boycott any business or owners who are not in agreement, I say that is their right.

      As far as I am concern, Wayne Furbert and the Premier are on the same page and I support both of them and their views on this matter and more importantly, God favors them even more for taking such a stand, so no matter who agrees with me, I believe God Himself will favor Mr. Wayne Furbert and Mr. Craig Cannonier more because of the stand they have taken.

      I congratulate you Mr. Premier for making such a bold move and to clarify your stand on this matter publicly.

      • Chris says:

        I have been reading your comments and they are pissing me off. You are so self righteous and act like you know the will of God. You don’t.

  2. Concerned Family Man says:

    I think for now this is the right stand. As the gay and lesbians had put it in their whole page advertisement the Human Rights Act Amendment was about work, renting, and business services, not marriage. I agree with the Honorable Minister Pettingill that a separate law should be discussed about giving some financial legal security to long term, registered same sex relationships including inheritance, health insurance, and shared ownership of real estate (if one partner is non-Bermudian). That law of course should also stipulate how a separation should be handled (similar to divorce). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says clearly in Article 29 that countries can limit certain rights for moral and good order. Marriage has not only the function of “being in love” (which usually does not last for ever) but also to give economic security, stability, and to give birth to the next generation to keep the population up. I disagree with allowing same sex couples to adopt children under the age of 18, though.

    • Time Shall Tell says:

      If you follow the way the whole gay movement operates, it’s in baby steps. So it would just be a matter of time before the topic of gay marriage being pushed by them.

  3. Nuffin but da Truth says:

    does that mean I cannot marry my cat now,I love having my p**** on my bed!

    • Tommy Chong says:

      You seem to have bestiality confused with homosexuality. To answer your question no you can not marry your pets & incase you were wondering you can’t marry your hand, your inflatable doll or the toys you bought at eves garden. You can only marry someone of the opposite sex that is as long as they are of consenting age.

      I have nothing against homosexuals but disagree with same sex marriages since homosexuality is a sexual preference & not a naturally occurrence. I know! I know! “There are cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.” but do those who stand by this argument know that animal behavior studies have shown in the instances of animal homosexuality it is proven that the dominant of the species shows that they are the alpha by performing these acts on the inferior of the group & the roles are never reverse. In conclusion animal homosexuality is the same as what happens in prison when an inmate wants to show their superiority to others. Let us not confuse animal behavior with humanity or we may have to agree with fathers eating their young next.

      If someone prefers to have relations with their same gender so be it what ever floats their boat but don’t confuse it with natural love. Polygamy is more a part of natures plan than homosexuality would ever be but its illegal & the majority disagree with it so what makes anyone think that homosexuals should marry when someone cannot have more than one spouse of the opposite sex.

      • In Defense of.... says:

        Well stated!!

      • Mike Hind says:

        Evidence of that? Do you have evidence that EVERY instance in EVERY species is a dominant/submissive relationship?

        It’s amazing that you’re basically saying “It’s not a natural occurrence” and then admit that it is. How does this make sense?

        It’s not a natural occurrence… and let’s not confuse animal behaviour with humanity…

        These are two opposing thoughts.

        • Tommy Chong says:

          I apologize for the confusion but what I meant is that it’s a natural occurrence to use homosexual acts to show dominance in animals but hopefully most of humanity has transcended from using this as a form of control. There is a difference between what is natural human behavior & animal behavior even though we are still animals there are things that most humans would agree are best left in our past. The only evidence I have of instances where animals use homosexual acts to show dominance are documentations I have read or watched that come from people who study in this field. Though I’m not a professional in this field it is elementary that the documentation I learn this from is correct that in Animal nature homosexuality is to show dominance. I highly doubt this act would be for procreation & that in the future all males will evolve an uterus. I’m sure in some cases it may be a way to satisfy certain urges just like my cousin’s chihuahua does to the furniture or anyones leg he gets hold of but the nature of it is the ends not the means. Even way back the spartan commanders would have their way with their squires but they didn’t look to marry the young boys they just looked at them as a means to satisfaction till they came back home to their wives. If the spartans took their boy toys as spouses humanity wouldn’t exist because this was not the way nature designed us or any other mammal.

          • JD says:

            So your documentation and evidence boils down to “something I read or watched”, bravo.

            As a proposal to refute your reference that homosexuality is a sexual preference & not a naturally occurrence I offer the following study.


          • Mike Hind says:

            This is not evidence of it happening EVERY time.

            In addition, this has nothing to do with the subject.

            You’re mixing up concepts and thoughts to promote hate.

            And “If the spartans took their boy toys as spouses humanity wouldn’t exist because this was not the way nature designed us or any other mammal.” is a completely ludicrous, ridiculous and bizarre statement with no basis in reality, skewed by a desperate desire to denounce homosexuality.

            The Spartans had ANY sort of effect on humanity existing?
            If they had married “their boy toys” (disgusting use of words), there would have been ABSOLUTELY no effect on humanity’s existance. None at all.

            Oh… and “nature designed us”?
            No. “Nature” didn’t design us. We weren’t designed.

            We’ve just found out the basis of your misunderstanding.

      • Phillip Wells says:

        Marriage is an artificial, human construct. It’s not something that occurs elsewhere in nature. So why is it relevant whether homosexuality is a natural occurrence or not?

        • Mike Hind says:

          Thank you, Phil. You’ve just debunked this whole line of thinking.

          “Homosexuality is unnatural.”
          “No, it isn’t. However, marriage is.”

      • BermudaGirl says:

        Tommy, at what age did you decide to become heterosexual? EXACTLY! Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Furthermore, this about $ (life, health insurance) not about morals. When will you “get” it, people?

  4. gatsby says:

    The PLP should push to ammend the Marriage Act to include same-sex marriage and force the hand of the OBA. Who would blind first?

  5. Grand Wizzard says:

    It takes a man and a woman to produce and raise a child. Nature designed this. Nature put us here. Shall we seek to defy what put us here? Who are we to do that?

    Man with his mighty intellect, above all other creatures? Ought he defy the very structure that put him on top of the earth?

    • micro says:

      Homo-sexual practices exists in nature… monkeys engage in gay sex, in many fish species weaker males trick dominate males into attempting to copulate with them while another weaker male engages the female, I can go on; You were saying?

      • Really?? says:

        Alot of things occur in nature. The female praying mantis kills the male after sex. Can we do that? With most animals, the runt of the litter is left to die. Can we do that? Just because it happens in nature doesn’t mean we have to follow. I can go on. You were saying?

        • micro says:

          the point was, its every bit as natural as anything else.

          • EliteT says:

            But your logic is flawed only because the analogies you presented contained organisms that do not share our human intellect and cognitive ability. Secondly, in biology only the strong survive. Homosexuality doesn’t increase the chances of a species survival nor does it provide a beneficial advantage when compared to other species.

            To say it is natural doesn’t add purpose nor does it give you an argument.

            • Mike Hind says:

              The initial argument is that it’s unnatural.
              Saying “it actually IS natural” and giving examples is the response to the argument.

              You might want to look up a few more biology lessons, too.
              There are LOTS of things that occur, naturally, that don’t increase the chance of species survival nor give a beneficial advantage.

              • EliteT says:

                “Lots of things that occur” please elaborate. Give us some good examples.

                We can search the internet for adaptation for things that occur for a reason in biology.

                Furthermore, you failed to write against my first point and secondly you still have not proven how homosexuality is beneficial to our species and our society. Therefore, you make no sense but thanks for sharing your opinion.

                • Sandy Bottom says:

                  Lots of things occur naturally but are not beneficial to the species. Many people are disabled in some way. Occurs naturally, has no biological benefit to the species.

                  The whole idea that marriage is only for oroduction of children is just completely untrue. Many couples choose not to have children. Many are unable to have them. There are some that are physically unable to have sex. Many couples marry after they are too old to have children. They marry for various reasons, but the reasons they marry have nothing to do with having children.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Why does it have to be beneficial to our species?

        • Drewgle says:

          “Just because it happens in nature doesn’t mean we have to follow”

          Heterosexuality happens in nature, and some choose not to follow. Yet you don’t see them saying that you shouldn’t be able to do what you want to do.

          • Some guy says:

            Seriously people, what part of “homosexuality is not a choice” are you all struggling with?

      • Tommy Chong says:

        Gay sex in monkeys is only to show dominance just as the dominance trick you mentioned in fish. How about when animals challenge each other for a mate or the alpha of one pack kills the alpha of another plus any other males so that pack can take the other’s mates. People can do whatever they like as long as they don’t hurt others in my opinion even have a full out orgy if they want but they shouldn’t confuse preference with natural love that brings forth new life. Even in heterosexual relationships sexual preference is confused with love & because there are people who are confused with which partner they prefer it has resulted in our society’s declined.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Every time? If you’re going to continue to push this line, you’re going to have to back it up.

          • Tommy Chong says:

            The book Homosexual Behaviour in Animals by Volker Sommer, University College London is one book to read if you want something that backs up my line. I can’t find any free online copies to refer to but it’s cheap enough to download a digital copy if you’re interested.

        • Familiar says:

          Bonobos. Look ‘em up.
          Swans. Look ‘em up.
          Neither anything to do with dominance, and those are just off the top of my head.
          Unbiased research will find the answers. The key being ‘unbiased’.

          • Tommy Chong says:

            I know about bonobos already & I know the solves all disputes with sex even the disputes of who dominates. I’d hate to be on the bad side of one of these chimps because I’d probably be mounted & become a bonobos b!#ch. I think I rather be ripped to pieces by their cousins on the other side of the congo.

            As for swans! These are one of the most aggressive birds there are & you think they wouldn’t mount their same species gender to show dominance.

            • Familiar says:

              I’m not denying that animals will use sex to dominate, so do humans. Ever heard the term rape?

              In reality ALL relationships are a matter of dominance and submission, though to what extent depends upon those involved.

              My point, which obviously was not clear enough, is that in both those particular animals, there is reputable evidence that long term same sex partnerships have been entered in to. In swans, life long.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Bonobos also have sex… and *gasp* yes, same-sex sex… for pleasure.

              Just because they ALSO use it for dominance doesn’t mean they don’t do it for pleasure.

              Your point is incorrect.

              • In Defense of.... says:

                Help me to understand something here, why do we compare nature, ie other animal species, to humans? Do animals have rational thinking on the level we do? Do animals have a moral standard? Animals kill each other and their own for food, does this justify humans killing each other? Who cares what two monkeys, two dogs, or a monkey with a dog do. What does their sexuality or anything else they do have to do with humans?

                I just do not get the need to compare us, humans, to other species of animals.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  The point made (that brought up the subject) is “It’s unnatural”

                  People are pointing out that it IS, in fact, natural.

                  No one is saying that we’re animals.

                  The ones making the comparison are those on your side.

    • Phillip Wells says:

      You’re confusing marriage with sex. Having the ability to produce and raise children is not a requirement to get married, as many infertile couples will attest.

    • whatever says:

      So the only purpose for marriage is to have children? What about straight couples that don’t want/can’t have children? Should THEY be allowed to marry? Yes? Then denying the same right to other unions that do not result in children is straight up discrimination.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Nature didn’t design anything.
      We weren’t designed. That’s just more religious thinking that you’re trying to push on other people.

  6. paul says:

    whats the reason for people pushing so hard for this?
    it runs rapid in the roman catholic chuch ,,now they have a gay bible called the queen james version,, wats up with that??? ,,, do these church people have a ugly dark side ? whats their plan with pushing homosexual so much?
    Unfortunately the Catholic church is ALL about denial and prestige. as for the pope
    The idiots that follow this dress wearing hypocrite are as guilty of the atrocities as he (and his pedophile laden church).
    Let’s hear this douche bag tell his “followers” to stay married and not divorce

  7. Time Shall Tell says:

    I wonder if this speech signals his Swan Song??? I guess only time shall tell…

  8. smh says:


    • Mike Hind says:


      Apparently, you’re not allowed to say “You should leave if you disagree with our views”…

  9. media says:

    One step at a time. Civil unions will come next in 10-15 years. In another 20-30 years same sex marraige will probably happen. Just like the Gaming issue, Bermuda is very slow dealing with these hard issues. The OBA has done what the pLP couldn’t do. Who is the more Progressive?

  10. The Future says:

    Good for you Craig!! We would be frowned upon by the rest of the Caribbean and be classified as a homo’s paridise! Everyone for same sex marriage go to NY! It’s not that far!!

    • Sooooooo says:

      Good thing we’re not in the Caribbean then.. HUH?

      And really who cares what the Caribean thinks of us?

      If you don’t like the idea od same sex marrage why don’t you nove to Jamiaca… (see how stupid that sounds?)

    • Tommy Chong says:

      @ Past I feel I must correct you even though I do agree to disagree with gay marriage I must let you know that Jamaica has already taken the title of gay paradise in the caribbean with their two hedonism resorts. Jamaica makes millions off gay tourist with their hedonism resorts & we could do the same if we had resorts where almost anything goes.

  11. EliteT says:

    Premier Craig Cannonier > Mark Pettingill (bigot)

    Thank you Premier that statement means a lot to the public.

  12. Tommy Chong says:

    What gays should be pushing for is someone to invest in creating a proper gay club. This way gay tourist & residents will have somewhere to go where they can feel comfortable to dress the way they want & do the things they want. A gay club would be a hit in Bermuda & may help the economy out a bit.

    • Toodle-oo says:

      Gay club in Bermuda ? Been done before on at least two ocassions that I can recall.

      If I remember correctly , the main problem was with the church goers and supposedly straights parked outside every night seeing who was coming and going . I wonder why they would be so very interested ?

  13. Muff diver says:


  14. Familiar says:

    I’m disappointed with Cannonier’s stance that it won’t happen under his watch but I can’t say as I’m particularly surprised by it.

    I am glad that he can differentiate between human rights and marriage and is willing to support the first.

    I don’t really understand why the religious community is so attached to the concept of marriage. The concept, in the way we understand it, is quite new and not a religious construct. But seriously, I’ve no problem with them having the word.

    If they want marriage to be between a man and a woman and only be religious based and having to do with procreation. Great. All yours.

    Now tell me what to call the relationship I happen to be in and have been in for 15 years. Up to now we’ve called it marriage, and we are a man and woman, and the ceremony was held in a church, BUT we haven’t procreated, and our relationship isn’t based in religion. So I guess it’s not marriage. Not really.

    So? Anyone want to tell me what to call it? Partnership? Love union? I’m open for options.

    My point here is… no one can force any church to perform a marriage ceremony, nor should anyone. Each church has it’s own beliefs and it would be wrong to try to force them to change them. Only the most radical of gay rights activists push for this and I believe they’re fully misguided.

    But no church/religion should have domain over a word or concept. If religions can’t have domain over ‘god’, or any of the other words meaning the same thing, or any of the concepts of what a god is, how can they claim domain over the word and concept of marriage.

  15. Mike Hind says:

    Let’s not forget…

    The church performs WEDDINGS, not marriages.

  16. me says:

    We are all EQUAL and should have the same rights as EVERYBODY.

  17. Common Sense says:

    @Tommy Chong – this is not in any way an attack on what you have posted, but I get the impression that you usually do some research before writing your posts, not like so many folks who just write what is often very hateful and totally misinformed comments based on ignorance and a lack of knowledge.

    For this reason I would like to encourage you to do a little research on the medical fact of “chimerism” where some of our fellow human beings are born with two different sets of DNA. Oprah did a show on this condition several years ago. I believe you will find that although some chimerics are born with two different sets of DNA they can be either male and male, or female and female, but in some cases one human being is born with both a male and a female set of DNA. And to further compound issues the split can sometimes be right down the middle as it were, so that half their body is male (with the necessary physical equipment) and half female. A medical expert has shown me graphic images of such people which leaves me in no doubt that the condition exists – although rare.

    If you find this to be the case, I wonder if you could then give some thought as to what rights these folks should have. Should they, for example, be permitted to marry, and if so who will decide whether they should marry a male or a female? Should it be our churches, or our Governments? Not sure if they can actually procreate but let’s say for a moment that the answer is yes.

    Is it possible that as human beings they should have the right to decide for themselves, and should they be entitled to equal treatment and equal human rights under the law. I’m having great difficulty accepting that Government’s should decide their fate, or Churches. What is your view?

  18. Deliverance says:

    what’s everybody afraid of? let them marry!

  19. waitaminute says:

    Hold on. He stayed that this will not happen under his leadership. Are we a dictatorship or a democracy? What if the majority of his party want to approve it?

  20. Nuffin but da Truth says:

    all this because I commented earlier about by p***** !

    well my p***** is still going to be on my bed.


  21. Larry Woolgar says:

    Well Mr. Cannonier, maybe you should act in accordance with equality and justice for all, not some narrow view, which sounds more like a religious stand than a moral one.
    Yer not a dictator,get over yourself and allow people more freedom….or move out!

  22. Paul says:

    People who oppose gay marriage will see in the next decade or two just how they are on the wrong side of history. The problem with a lot of politicians is they do support gay marriage, however they fear that the religious bigots will pull an all out war against politicians who support gay marriage to get them out of office.

    Religious people are just the worse people to be listening to. If they use the Bible to justify their belief why to oppose gay marriage than they need to stop eating lobsters because it’s a sin, stone children to death for lying, believe women are property of man and stone women to death if they are not virgins when they married. Actually a man can Marry more than one woman.

    So to all the idiots who want to cherry pick what works for you…stop imposing your beliefs on the public because not everyone shares those beliefs. How can you deny people who are in love not be together.

  23. god1st says:

    The premier supports homosexuality and participates in the very same behavior.

    He has been chosen by the oba\ubp to serve in the best interest of the Europeans and they knew that he would bring forth their agenda.

    Mlitary science serves to identify the strategic,political,
    tactical elements necessary to sustain relative advantage of military force;and to increase the likelihood and favourable outcome.

    Look for black people you can use to advance your cause. Most of these black leaders identify with their oppressors,and it easy for them to do so. why? The premier and many other black leaders identify with the system .The premier has been pro homosexual all this time even before he was hand picked to lead the BDA/OBA/UBP.

  24. BDABOY says:

    “Martin gass is a ***** jus shut your gay *** up bo one gives a flying *** about you.. u wanna marry a man then take that gay *** to england because if i see any gay *** around my child im turning **** **”

    Wow…stay classy Bermuda….just like the the 16th century.

    What a disgusting, closed minded society.

    Bermuda certainly is an ‘exclusive’ place….excluding all who don’t share the same beliefs.