Wayne Furbert’s Motion On Marriage Defeated

June 15, 2013

PLP MP Wayne Furbert’s suggested change to the Human Rights Act Amendment pertaining to marriage was defeated in the House of Assembly last night [June 14] with all One Bermuda Alliance MPs and three Progressive Labour Party MPs voting it down.

Mr Furbert wanted to change the amendment so it could not affect the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1974, expressing concerns over same sex marriage.

It was defeated 18-12, with all OBA MPs and three PLP MPs [Walter Roban, Walton Brown and Michael Scott] voting to defeat it. The remaining PLP MPs and Independent Terry Lister voted in favour of the change.

The overall amendment to the Human Rights Act to ban discrimination based on age or sexual orientation was approved.

The  ”No” Votes:

  1. Jeanne Atherden [OBA]
  2. Kenny Bascome [OBA]
  3. Shawn Crockwell [OBA]
  4. Michael Dunkley [OBA]
  5. Dr Grant Gibbons [OBA]
  6. Pat Gordon-Pamplin [OBA]
  7. Susan Jackson [OBA]
  8. Trevor Moniz [OBA]
  9. Mark Pettingill [OBA]
  10. Sylvan Richards [OBA]
  11. Leah Scott [OBA]
  12. Wayne Scott [OBA]
  13. Cole Simons [OBA]
  14. Glenn Smith [OBA]
  15. Jeff Sousa [OBA]
  16. Walton Brown [PLP]
  17. Walter Roban [PLP]
  18. Michael Scott [PLP]

The “Yes” votes:

  1. Marc Bean [PLP]
  2. Derrick Burgess [PLP]
  3. David Burt [PLP]
  4. Rolfe Commissiong [PLP]
  5. Zane DeSilva [PLP]
  6. Lovitta Foggo [PLP]
  7. Wayne Furbert [PLP]
  8. Dennis Lister [PLP]
  9. Lawrence Scott [PLP]
  10. Michael Weeks [PLP]
  11. Kim Wilson [PLP]
  12. Terry Lister [IND]

Read More About

Category: All, News, Politics

Comments (110)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. God says:

    I like you taking a biblical stance on the definition of marriage. However, as you well know, I am all for polygamy. I have even said such in my best selling book. Why haven’t you attempted to end the ban on such? My book is to be taken literally. You can’t pick and choose which parts to follow. Please step up your game my son. I look forward to your new motion and will see that such a vote ends in your favour. I don’t want you to be a loser forever.

    • Nothing but a political stunt on both sides says:

      Hey God you sound like you have more sugar on you then the Ginger Bread man. Take the strawberry out of you’re @$$ Bermuda does not want same sex wedding walking out of the Register Gerneral. If this was the case both political parties would have granted approval and Monday morning you and Willy could have walk out holding hands.

      • Black Soil says:

        Wayne must be getting excited from all this cheap attention.

      • hehe says:

        I’m here LMAO with the blog.

      • Lets hope says:

        Who are you to say Bermuda does not want it. I really don’t care if two people who are in love and want to share their life together. So please don’t speak for me.

    • Sandy Bottom says:

      God, I notice Wayne cuts his hair, shaves, and eats shellfish. Perhaps he should suggest some laws that prohibit these practices as well.

      • collins says:

        Good Lord, we have had enough of brother Wayne……

  2. all the homosexual references were in the Old Testament. So let’s all live that way again shall we? Have as many wives as we want, kill people for pissing on another man’s wall, go into a city and rape a virgin so long as you pay her father afterwards and marry the girl. Seriously people? Oh, let’s have slaves again too cuz that’s ok in the OT. I’m catholic. But I don’t say any biblical valid reason to go against LBGT people.

  3. Free advice from a Lawyer says:

    Can two men marry in Bermuda on June 15, 2013 NO. What rights have changed for gay people NONE! Nothing was gain from this bill unless someone comes out and calls you a f@@ and I don’t rent to gays. Discrimination based on same sex marriage is still on the books.

    • Balanced Facts says:

      I suggest you go and talk to a Lawyer who knows the law!

  4. Um Um Like says:

    What impact do homosexuals being able to marry have on your life Wayne, or on anyone’s who oppose same sex marriage for that matter? Don’t open the bible. There is no answer in there to this question.

    I’d like to outlaw heterosexual marriage. There are far too many heterosexuals making gay babies nowadays.

    • Stupidity is contagious but thankfully there is a cure,it is called study to show thyself approved. I had to respond to your ignorance so that other’s don’t just believe what you wrote without out taking the time to research your foolish comments.

      There are scriptures in the Bible that deal directly with marriage and does not pre date humanity but given for humanity, and Bernews would so allow. I ask if any that are in doubt please take and read the following passages or have someone read it for you.

      Hebrews:chapter 13 verse 4

      Ephesians:chapter 5 verses 22 to 33

      1 Corinthians:chapter 7 verses 1 to 40

      Proverbs:chapter 18 and verse 22

      Proverbs:chapter 19 and verse 14

      They all speak about marriage and God’s views on marriage

      • Joe says:

        What are your thoughts on having more than one wife? Or your wife having another husband?

        • It was actually biblical to do so under the old covenant, but not permitted under the new covenant, that is why Muslims believe that they can still marry and have many wives,because they believe in the old covenant but at no time in any religion or religious belief has a woman been permitted to have more then one husband at one time.

          • Black Soil says:

            You bible lovers make me laugh.

            • collins says:

              you bible lovers are so sick….you use the bible to back up your sick way of thinking !!!!!

          • Sandy Bottom says:

            Duane, you can’t present the bible as God’s word, and your evidence, and then later say that over half of it doesn’t apply. You can’t just pick the convenient bits of evidence.

      • Hey says:

        How come if God spoke so much , that It has been so quiet for quite some time. Why is it that there is so much confusion with all the rules.

        Only man can make such a pigs ear of such things. Man wrote the bible…God played no part.

      • Building a better Bermuda says:

        In our society, marriage is a contract you enter into with another, the whole wedding ceremony bit is the religious act. In fact marriage predates even Jahweh, so for any modern religion to claim that they own it and should dictate who it applies to is irrelevant in our evolving civilization. Marriage should be allowed to all. Whether a religion want to hold the ceremony is entirely open the that religion, as part of freedom of religion, but it in no way allows any religion to dictate who it applies to.

  5. Sorry Sir says:

    When will people learn that Marriage is not a religious concept and pre-dates recorded history?

    Like really. You cannot quote the Bible or any other religious text because marriage is NOT A RELIGIOUS CONCEPT AND NEVER WAS!

    • theothersidebda says:

      When will you learn that God’s precepts pre-date the Bible (i.e. the written Word)? And those precepts existed from the very BEGINNING, so yes it marriage is an institution established by God from the very beginning even if the written form came much later.

      • Sorry Sir says:

        God established marriage? Wow, that means before we even knew how to communicate we were getting married? Oh wow, I’m so enlighten right now.

        No, “God” did not create marriage. Marriage is too universal to be established by one religion. With so many forms and customs, there is no way that religion was the reason for marriage. Marriage was simply a way for a man to possess women.

        • theothersidebda says:

          Who said anything about religion? God is not a ‘religion’. As for your comment about not believing the Bible, that is another issue entirely. However, your disbelief in something is no more relevant than my belief in something. The Bible is not true because I believe in it; it also not true because you don’t. It is true because He said it is.

          • Rick Rock says:

            Do you believe all of the bible, out of interest? Since you believe in the creation, you believe the old testament. So you believe the bits that promote slavery, that forbid cutting your hair, forbid easting shellfish? Do you follow every word in the bible all the time?

      • Building a better Bermuda says:

        Actually, Jahweh only goes back to the pantheon of Canaan, and human civilization was around for millennia prior to Canaan. Marriage does predate the earliest time of judahism, just as it well established that humanity has been around well before the bible.

        • theothersidebda says:

          Your definition of humanity pre-dates the Bible only from the standpoint that absolutely, humans were on the earth prior to the books of the Bible being written on scrolls. But the Bible clearly starts off with “In the beginning”. Now whether you choose to accept this as historical record or not is irrelevant. The Bible says it starts “in the beginning” and then it further goes on to describe the creation of man and woman. So no, according to the Bible, marriage does not pre-date anything you mention and is in fact not a man made practice. You can opt to not believe in the Bible, but do not change what it says to fit your own human logic.

          • theothersidebda says:

            sorry, “does pre-date anything you mention”

          • Building a better Bermuda says:

            Actually my main point was that there was actually recorded civilization before Yahweh even came along, there was also several other versions of creation prior to his declaration of his version. Let’s face it, you didn’t start a new social order/religion back then by saying, ‘well our neighbor’s gods created the world, but our god rules it’.

            Literature is rife with books that start with some paraphrasing of ‘in the beginning’, the Bible just happens to be the longest running print and it did this in the beginning by having many of its early leaders commanded their followers to go out and eradicate through either assimilation or annihilation any other notions. Including of Yahweh’s sibling dieties in the Canaanite pantheon.

            I never changed what it says, I just highlighted that what it says purposely omits what actual happened and writes its own story for it own purpose. But you can choose not to believe in history, but that does change what happened.

            It is clear you will believe what the Bible says as the truth till God tells you otherwise, and that you will continue to use it to justify your own prejudice, just as those who championed apartheid and segregation did, and those who championed genocide did and those who championed slavery did. Just remember, when you do this, you miss out on the Bible’s spirituality, and it becomes just a tool.

    • Please read my comments above it might just help your sorry Ox.

  6. Come On Man says:

    Finally some open minded politicians. Well done for not hiding behind the Bible.

  7. Devils Advocate says:

    I don’t know what to feel about this, i mean should a union between same sex be called a marriage? are you going to have all best men or all bridesmaids? lol

    • Better still, if they ever pass legislation that gays can marry, is the christian ministers going to be in violation for refusing to marry them, and is government going to revoke their license as a minister because they refuse to conduct a gay marriage.


      • Building a better Bermuda says:

        Easy enough answer, freedom of religion would protect the church from refusing to marry same sex couple on th grounds of religious beliefs, but as it in the world, there are Christian organizations that do perform same sex marriages.

      • Black Soil says:

        Duane…you brother are stupid.

  8. Lebron says:

    Ok, so look up at that list of names. Which party is progressive and current? The elected one, the one people call the UBP still – really? – they seem pretty enlightened to me. And which one is caught in the old Bermuda of intolerance, bigotry and hate? The unelected one that ironically was borne out of intolerance, bigotry and hate.

    I guess you can get too comfortable eh Marc?

  9. ohyea! says:

    how about a furby law to force young straight men to get married and limit them to having only one illegitimate child, all failing stand up in the house a give your best shot at singing the Y.M.C.A ! one thing for sure you make us holla and laugh till we cry! what a joker

  10. Wayne do not allow those who speak here in negativity get to you in any shape or form, I for one am glad that the vote went the way id did. It shows how people think and what their belief system is, but regardless of ones opinion it does not make it right.

    Wayne remember this, having all to stand just stand.in history we have seen many accounts were the majority was more then those that were heard in the streets and in this case the house of assembly. At the end of it all, God Will have his say and that is guaranteed.

    Britain and France are in the similar debate, Bermuda is just a few years behind the plan that is unfolding in Europe but they have the same agenda. I hear many saying that last nights debate has nothing to do with gay marriages and you and I both know differently, the rainbow coalition has no intentions on stopping here.we are told to love the sinner but hate the sin and that directive has never changed in God’s Holy Word.

    There is none that is perfect amongst us but we strive to do right always and live in accordance to the ordinances that God has given us,one thing that is sure and a promise to all man kind regardless of race,creed or culture. That what so ever a man sows, that shall he also reap, so I agree that the gay community should not be stoned as in the old testament, because when Jesus Christ of Nazareth died on the cross, He took all the sins that were ever committed and ever will be committed, upon himself.

    Jesus death on the cross was so that we may have a better covenant then that which was given in the old testament, Jesus did not do away with the law, He fulfilled it by His death. so many would say don’t make this into a religious sermon but the truth is, you can not debate an issue such as this without taking into the consideration the creation account, of who we are and whose we are.

    Wayne it may seem as if many will rise up and condemn you for your stance,even in government. I am glad that both you and Bishop Lloyd Duncan have stood and said what thus says the Lord. Stand strong and know that Heaven smiles down on you and those that reject you have done only what they know how to do,for they have no real in site to the damnation that we bring upon ourselves when we so choose to go against God and his workmanship in the earth.

    Making a mistake and committing a sin is in itself an issue but when we try and defy the greatest power in the earth, even the earth groans and destruction is sure to follow in one form or the other, God is love and has mercy on all, but can not go against His own will and purpose for humanity and that is why Satan himself brings so much destruction in lives of people and in jurisdictions around the world.

    Wayne in closing shoulder up your cross and stand and to every believer in Jesus Christ of Nazareth,let Yeshua Hamashiach rule and reign. don’t be ashamed of who you are and whose you are and many don’t write blogs but Wayne they are praying for you and covering you through power unknown to the common man.

    I also go a step further and warn those of you that would dare to go against what has been said here, That you personally will see your own demise because it is not I but Christ that liveth within that you will wrestle with and the results may not be what you are expecting.So leave well enough alone before you try and come to this level.

    This is why I put my name on my blogs, because I can stand by what I believe and am man enough to ask for forgiveness when I am wrong for anything I say and do, I don’t stand behind codes names like the cowards that post without the real names, I also don’t reply to them either unless, I feel the situation warrants it for someone else.

    Thank you Bernews for allowing me this opportunity but I believe God will always have a voice in this country and thank you for allowing those who have stood on Christian principles to stand, because the day will come when this opportunity will be taken away.

    • Seagull says:

      Somebody call MAWI. This guy ^ needs some serious help!
      Believing in an imaginary ‘god’ is acceptable. But believing in fairies and other imaginary friends gets you locked up. Go figure.

      • I go to MAWI on a regular and believe me I enjoy being there, because those that are there are more sane then the jack rabbits like you, that disclose their identity through stupidity and are cowards that don’t use their real names in an open forum.

        You see my attacks really don’t get this severe on those that oppose what I say,when they have their right name printed because even though we may differ. I give them the respect that they stood behind their convictions and not ashamed to do so by posting their real names.

        This is why I get into trouble with many religious folk because I support the gay person that stands up for what they believe,when they are not ashamed to say who they are and what their beliefs are, I just wish the church would do the same and when they do, what a difference it would make

  11. Doesn't It make sense?! says:


    As tourism minister wouldn’t it make sense to make Bermuda a safe haven where gays can get married and make it a destination spot?! I thought we need tourists. And if its anything that I’ve learned about gays they know how to spend money!!!!!!

    Think before you speak…

  12. really? says:

    Whos standing up for peoples rights now? Oh yeh forgot homosexuals arent part of the BIU and Chris Furberts band of idiotic lunatics so the PLP were only right to appose it… haha

  13. Unjrust Realities says:

    While we sit here and discuss sexuality issues and alternative choices rights to get married, we missed the part of the bill that noted age discrimination is illegal except for the workforce . . .so are we now saying that a person can be legally denied a job or promotion because he or she is too young or too old??????

  14. Soooooo says:

    So when Wayne sings “all you need is love”, what he really means is “all you need is love as long as they are not ofthe same sex”…. What would John Lennon think of this attitude toward your fellow man!

  15. Glen says:

    Okay, Okay hold on, I am looking at all of this and I hear my brothers and sisters on both sides of the argument! First to my Christain Saints, an argument about the Word is not needed! What is God’s word, is His word. For all you on the other side and that includes you, Christains for same sex marriage, you have a right to do that. However, you can’t come into a church and demand a pastor to marry you as it is not in accordance with God’s word.

    • Tell that to the law makers when it comes to debating and they will answer you with God’s Word and quote, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars.

      Then they will go on to quote that the Bible says that you must obey the law of the land.

  16. DE Guy says:

    Wrong is Wrong regardless of how many people do it. Gay marriage is wrong period. just because people don’t listen to everything in the bible doesn’t mean you should let gay marriage slide. i mean people still kill others regardless of how wrong it is but that doesn’t mean it should be legal. same with gay marriage, just becuase there are alot of gays who want to marry doesnt mean the should. marriage is supposed to bring children

    • JD says:

      Equating gay marriage to homicide – seriously? Oh and I think you might want to read up on human reproduction, last time I checked marriage really didn’t have anything to do with it.

    • Building a better Bermuda says:

      In case you haven’t noticed, the world is spiraling toward unsustainable over population. What we need more of to survive is tolerance and not reproduction.

  17. Nuffin but da Truth says:

    if 2 gays wanna push $*!t up a hill so long as I dont see it I really dont give a dam.

  18. JesusisLord! says:

    Mr. Furbert, you tried to stand up for the defense of marriage as Almighty God defines it. God Almighty will honor you for honoring His Word and placing it above the praise of man.

    Romans 1:16-32

    16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

    17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

    19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

    21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

    22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

    23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

    25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

    30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

    31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    • Family Man says:

      You sound like someone who would be very proud to finish a 100 piece jigsaw puzzle in six months when the box says 2-4 years.

    • JD says:

      When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

      Really nice book you have there.

      • In Defence of... says:

        Typical Internet atheists who want to pretend as though they know the Bible better than most believers or Bible scholars, by virtue of their having read, say, the ‘ there is no God Bible.’ Now let’s address your misreading of the text or your lack of scripture understanding of the text.

        20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.” Ex 21:20-21 (ESV)

        JD, you’re reading the text and making a statement as if the Bible says, “You can beat your slave to death.” But it does not. The text does not condone the beating of the slave at all. Rather, the text is describing what the punishment is for beating one’s slave to death. That is, the text actually CONDEMNS beating a slave to death. In the one case, the slave owner is punished by being put to death. In the other case, which is an unintentional death by beating, the slave owner is punished in terms of his own financial loss from having beaten his slave to death. The implication is that he did not intend to kill his slave, but was still wrong in beating the slave. Otherwise there would be no mention of punishment in either case. But as it is, there is a punishment in both cases here for beating a slave to death. In the first case of intentionally beating a slave to death, the slave owner is likewise to be put to death. In the second case of unintentionally beating a slave to death, the slave owner’s own foolish financial loss serves as his punishment.

        Perhaps you should try studying the text next time on your own (not an atheist site that references the text), or reading some commentaries, or reading the text without understanding, and you won’t make such silly mistakes, reading the text the exact *opposite* way from which it is to be read.


        • Sandy Bottom says:

          That’s your interpretation, but that’s not what it says. It says the slave is legitimate property, and can be beaten, as long as it doesn’t result in immediate death. That is what it says. This is the bible: it’s God’s word. Don’t try to change it.

          • In Defence of... says:

            I don’t know what you are reading. Where does it say the slave can be beaten?

            What it does is, ” When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, HE SHALL BE PUNISHED. The person being punished is the slave owner and the punishment was being sentenced to death.

            In the second part, “But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.” This basically means, based on Biblical studies and not my interpretation, that since the slave did not die there is nothing to be avenged, in the form of death for the owner. However, financial loss serves as the slave owner’s punishment.

            • Building a better Bermuda says:

              No it says that if the slave dies on the third day, then his master may go unpunished. It does not condone beating your slave, just beating him or her severely.

              • In Defence of... says:


                There are TWO different crimes here. The first crime, resulted in the slave dying. The punishment was death. The other, the slave did not die, but the punishment resulted in financial loss.

                The second crime still has to do with “a man that strikes his slave.” However, in this case the slave dies after the second dat. As you put it “if the slave dies on the third day, then his master may go unpunished.” Again, I believe this is a deliberate, gross wilful misunderstanding , misrepresentation of the text. When the text says “his master is not punished” this basically means his master was not put to death. But his master is punished. Slaves were worth money. If the master killed his slave he is punished by a financial loss which serves as the slave owner’s punishment. It does not condone any beating not ” just beating him or her severely.” It just shows two different forms of punishment for the same crime. We have similar laws , rules, and punishments in our society today. For the same crime, you can either go to jail or just receive a financial penalty, if you receive the lesser punishment or no punishment it does not mean that the courts condone your actions.

                • Sandy Bottom says:

                  No. If the master beats the slave he is fine if the slave lasts until the 3rd day. He receives no punishment at all. But if the slave dies prior to that point, the master is punished. It’s clear what it says, and what it means.

                  You’re deliberately and willfully misreading it.

    • Balanced Facts says:

      Jesus wore a toga, sandals, drank a lot of wine, hung around with a bunch of guys, no girlfriend or wife, really tight with his Mom…maybe, just maybe He was gay…in any event I bet he was happy yesterday when the haters finally got it stuck to them!

  19. Tony Brannon says:

    LOVE, and the celebrating of that union between ANY human,is to be embraced. In the eyes of the SPIRITUAL FORCE I am guided by this force/God accepts any union of love, regardless of gender or skin color.

    Bigots and religious intolerant right wingers are living in the dark ages. So SAD….

  20. Time Shall Tell says:

    Homosexuality by its’ very nature is an unproductive act that goes against the very design of the human body & it’s designed functions. Homosexuality makes up only 3% of the worlds population but the world over this movement is forcing itself onto the masses. Should you not agree with this life style you’re then labeled by various nasty names & etc., this is a very childish peer pressure tactic.

    Luckily I have never given in to peer pressure in my life so I don’t worry about what labels are cast onto me. I do however care about the moral decline that society is heading towards with no end in sight. It’s going to get to the point where one day we’re all going to look around as to how low our standards have sunk & wonder how we gut there. If we accept this as a norm then what’s next? Polygamy?, Incest? Neither are far fetched since the main argument for justifying the homosexual lifestyle is based on it being between to consensual adults. Well both polygamy & incest can also be between consensual adults so the same argument can be made in both of those cases.

    I moral ground needs to be stood before it is taken to the point of no return. Look at the madness that is currently going on within the United States (at least 3 transgender teenager cases presently going on, Boyscouts, the 18 year old lesbian having sex with the 14 year old girl) to see what the slippery slope has in store. There’s already enough morally corrupt behavior that requires us to address without adding even more to it.

    (I purposely left religion out of all of my statements since atheists seem to take an easy coup out)

    • Well said and what you said has great value, so be encourage to stand to do what is right according to human nature.

    • JD says:

      @Time Shall Tell – Canada legalised gay marriage in 2005. So please tell me in the last 8 years has the society of Canada declined into an society where polygamy and incest are running rife? Surely after 8 years morality must have sunk to a new low based on your slippery slope theory.

      Not a fan of Canada? What about Belgium, the Netherlands, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Argentina, are all these countries overrun with satanic polygamists practicing incest? I would imagine so as they all legalised same-sex marriage years ago.

      • Time Shall Tell says:

        JD,the gay agenda has been fine tuning itself for mass acceptance (& force feeding those who don’t accept) for decades now. Neither polygamy and incest has been pushed to that degree over this time frame, however on the heels of what has the potential of becoming the new norm it is a plausible factor.

        I am glad you bought up Massachusetts, this is the same state that claims to have transgender students at kindergarten age. What child at that tender age would feel their a girl trapped in a boys body? This is the same state that allows boys who claim to be having issue identifying their sexual gender to use the bathroom & changing rooms of the opposite sex. This is despite whatever the opposite sex may feel about it, since their rights don’t seem to count, only that of the confused individual. The argument used there was that an individuals sexual organs don’t dictate their gender. If genitalia doesn’t distinguish between male & female then what else does? Only a woman can have a baby no matter how a confused man may think he is a woman he can never naturally accomplish this. Nature is so gender biased. Huh?

        As for Canada, there actually is gaining momentum of a legal battle to legalize polygamy with court dates going back at least 5 years. Also if you do a Google search for “lawyer on polygamy case changes his tune” you would find that the only reason Canada hasn’t legalized polygamy is they fear that there then wouldn’t be enough women to go around. So it’s not fought against for the grounds of morality but the fear that some men will not be able to find eligible single women because of other men having multiple wives.

        So this further proves my point of how slippery the slope is once you decide deviate from the traditional family structure.

        • Gamer Elite says:

          @ Time Shall Tell

          “The argument used there was that an individuals sexual organs don’t dictate their gender. If genitalia doesn’t distinguish between male & female then what else does?”

          Well, that’s actually correct. Gender refers to a person’s internal social construct, not their physical attributes. Gender identity along with gender expression help define male and female. To break it down a little more, gender is known as the “brain and soul sex” which is what a person is identified as. Sex is the physical combination of primary and secondary sex characteristics like their facial & body hair, genitalia, bone structure, and chromosomes.

          So gender isn’t down to hormones and the physical stuff you’re talking about, sex is. It’s also why the transition for transsexual individuals is called a “sex change”, not “gender change”, because one’s gender can’t be altered but your physical sex makeup can to a degree.

          And in regards to the rest of the comments that you’ve made here, all I can say it’s no wonder you’ve been called those “various nasty names” by other people; you very much deserve it with your bigoted, backwards logic along with your silly apples and oranges comparisons. You have such an amazingly shallow view of this, it’s sad.

          • Time Shall Tell says:

            There’s the childish name calling I mentioned earlier.

            So by your own admission, homosexuality is a mental disorder…

            • Sandy Bottom says:

              Believing blindly in something that is patently untrue is a mental disorder.

    • JD says:

      Oh and Massachusetts legalised same-sex marriage in 2004. I certainly won’t be visiting Boston anytime soon, no sir (sarcasm)

  21. Really says:

    He believes in pyramid schemes lol and moonwalking get serious guys duh lets move on !

  22. Jennifer says:

    Good evening

    I have read all of these comments and there are very few people listening to each other!!

    Isn’t “marriage” really made up of 2 parts? One that is government based and thus legislated and one religious and done by one’s Church, Mosque or Synogue or other religious body?

    If this is correct then the government only has the say in the legal marriage contract and this is where it is important for the rights of all people, but specifically for this discussion – LGBT persons ie visitation in hopsital, pensions (maybe?), passing down of property where there isn’t a will etc.

    So where do the two issues intersect? I do not see that they do. One is secular and one is faith based. Christians don’t disallow Muslim marriages for example even though they don’t agree with all of the tenants of their faith…

    So why can’t we have legal same sex marriage and let whichever Ministers perform them that wish to. Already there are Ministers (or Pastors etc) who won’t perform marriage cermonies outside of a church – we don’t force them to do this, so why does anyone think that anyone would be forced to perform same sex ceremonies? I think that this thinking is just fear mongering.

    So my main point is that the marriage contract that government is involved in is a legal contract and has nothing at all to do with religion, so all of this religious discussion is somewhat besides the point for a legal govermnent decision.

    Lastly, someone made another important point that age disrimination is still allowed in the work place. Is this true?? If so, how did this get through? Where was Age Concern?


  23. justsayin says:

    I understand that nobody should be discriminated, but I’m still against gay marriage. What is our society really becoming.

    They won’t allow gambling and they won’t decriminalize marijuana yet two gay people can get married and raise a child together.

    Our economy has crashed, there are hundreds without jobs yet on the priority of items we allow gay people to marry.

    Well it is what it is.

    • Bernews says:

      To clarify, this doesn’t mean same sex marriage is legal in Bermuda, as there are other laws governing that. The Human Rights legislation that passed last night prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and age for things like housing and employment. It still has to go to the Senate for final approval.

    • Sandy Bottom says:

      Actually, the law just protects a gay person’s right to have an equal opportunity of a job, or a house. Not such a big deal is it?

  24. Ya got me Rollin ......NOT says:

    No religion in this one. Because I know most of the posters who wanted this to pass have a hatred for religion. But when some natural disaster hits Bermuda, they will be the first to cry GOD HELP US!!!!

    Anyway I digress. If men were meant to have sex and marry men and women were meant to have sex and marry women we all right now wouldn’t be debating this issue because none of us would be here. Unless you know or have proof that a men can impregnate a man and the like for women. Please share

    P.S. Look Ma No Bible.

    • non-swimmer says:

      So men or women who are infertile shouldn’t marry either? Stfu. And by your logic we shouldn’t allow gay relationships… Stfu. Somehow you link marriage to reproduction. Marriage has nothing to do with having children. Just look at all the bas**** children we have running around on our island if you want proof that straight people aren’t adhering to your warped logic.

    • Mike Hind says:

      You posted this in another thread, too…

      Yet, you haven’t gone back and responded to the rebuttal.
      Nor have you here.

      I guess we’re just supposed to let lies and misinformation stand.

      Way to stand up for the things you say.

  25. The Power of Words says:

    Mr. Wayne Furbert I agree, shoulder up your cross and continue to uphold the biblical standards of our Heavenly Father. Many are in-deed praying for you.

    “The fear of the Lord (Reverence) is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the holy is understanding” Proverbs 9: 10.

    Our Heavenly Father is still on HIS Throne, looking and recording the actions of all men….. We MUST continue to uphold HIS standards, instructions, rules, and commands.

    Our Island Home has been very blessed and covered by the Divine Hand of protection over the years, and I am sure it is the desire of all for God’s protection to continue.

    We must/ should not blatantly ignore the warnings of abominable practices, and support or agree to the many attempts to over-ride/ dis-regard what the Bible CLEARLY speaks against.

    • Sandy Bottom says:

      The bible clearly states you should not shave, cut your hair, or eat shellfish. Do you obey every word in the bible all the time?

      • In Defence of... says:

        Why do people, who have not studied the Bible, constantly quote this part of the Bible or any part of the Bible, with no understanding of the scriptures to prove a point like you’re playing some sort of ‘gotcha’ game. Do you even have an understanding of the Leviticus Laws, the history of these laws, the time period of these laws, and who these laws applied to?

        These Leviticus Laws was written to Old Testament JEWS!! JEWS PEOPLE, JEWS!!Leviticus is written specifically for the people of Israel, containing laws and rules for Israel to obey as they prepare to occupy the land of Canaan. The people of Israel are being told not to act like the “pagans”. “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel’s priests. This prohibition of homosexual acts follows after the prohibition of the idolatrous sexuality.

        So ignore the Leviticus Laws, if you are not Jewish than most of these laws DO NOT apply to you. In fact, if you read Genesis 9:4 it specifies that men are allowed to eat meat.

        As far as Christians condemning homosexuality in this day and age there is at least two mentions in the New Testament that clearly state that homosexuality is sexually immoral, indecent, and goes against the will of God.

        1 Cor. 6:9-10 “9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

        Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

        If you do not believe in God (Jesus) or any God for that matter, and you support homosexuality than that is your right. I will not condemn you to hell because you support homosexuality. When Christians, or whatever religious group speaks out against homosexuality, based on their belief in God, and the sacredness of the Holy Bible or the Quran, in the defence of their faith how dare non-believes call these people bigots, ignorant, and whatever disrespectful name you can think of, simply because someone disagrees with your stance on the issue. We should be allowed to disagree while still allowing the other person’s point of view to be held with impunity.

        • Sandy Bottom says:

          Well why do you think you can follow one part of the bible and not another? Why are you allowed to pick choose the parts that you want? Isn’t it ALL supposed to be God’s word? Why do anti-gay bigots always bring up Adam and Eve (it wasn’t Adam and Steve, they always say)? That was he Old Testament. Why do you use the Old Testament to argue against evolution? Now that someone points out some stupid sh1t in the bible you start choosing which bits are “true” and which bits are..what did you come up with …”only for the people in Canaan”? What crap.

          You can’t justick that bits thst are convenient for you. That makes you a hypocrite, which is fine. That’s what most of you bible-thumping backward myth-believers are: the biggest hypocrites. You pick and choose what you want out of the bible according what’s convenient on that particular day.

          You call yourself Christians. you aren’t. Christians are compassionate, open-minded and kind. You are closed-minded, bigoted, and unkind. You call yourself Christian, but you aren’t.

          • In Defence of... says:

            Your attempts, and others like you, to interpret Scripture according to their own would-be autonomous categories have always struck me as exercises in futility due to the admission that you and others have already rejected Scripture anyway. The lengths to which people will go in an attempt to justify sin in themselves and in others are rather incredible.

            In my comments, I have never taken a position on this subject, but I have simply challenged you on your comments referencing the Bible which you give the impression you don’t believe in.

            In all of my comments, I have not taken a position on this subject. I simply challenged the comments you made regarding Bible Scripture of which you are not telling the truth and spreading lies based on your lack of understanding.

            Also, I am not picking and choosing, as you put it, what I want out of the Bible. You asked a question about the Leviticus Laws, cutting of the hair, shaving, etc. I answered you. Those laws were given to the JEWS specifically for that time period. I can’t put it any more simpler than that. Some Jews today still follow these laws, and you would see a lot of Rabbis today with the long beards and uncut hair. These laws were the first thing the Jewish children were taught in school .
            What you and others are doing with Bible Scripture, when you are against it, but you use it anyway to support your point or condemn the faith is a gross wilful misunderstanding , misrepresentation, distortion, insult and travesty to something that people hold sacred.

            “Christians are compassionate, open-minded and kind. You are closed-minded, bigoted, and unkind.” I emphasize the last part, ” You are closed-minded, bigoted, and unkind.” In doing this you commit the very error of which you accuse Christians and other religious groups of doing.

            You degrade and attack Christians (and religious group) and, I am sure, the attempt us to intimidate Christians into abstaining from the political realm and social structuring of our culture—based on their religious beliefs. You degrade the Christian lifestyle which includes the right to disapprove of homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, polyandry, pornography, etc. Also, you incite prejudicial action against Christians with your ill-informed misrepresentations of Christianity. It is not bigoted, narrow-minded, or hate speech to say we follow God and believe that homosexuality, pornography, pedophilia, rape, adultery, etc., are all wrong. Call me whatever name you want, it doesn’t scare me.

            All I ask, since you clearly do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the Bible and Bible teachings, is PLEASE, leave something that is scared alone when showing support for homosexuality. Not everyone who quotes from the Bible is a Christian on here, and not everyone (including yourself) has studied the Bible Scriptures enough to quote it. Make your case for homosexuality, I may support it, but leave those things that are sacred to the Church and to those that believe and understand the Scriptures. The worst thing you can do is spread LIES about the Scriptures based on your misunderstanding of the text.

            • Sandy Bottom says:

              You have certainly proved you’re incapable of reading with any understanding. I see – anyone bringing up biblical inconsistencies “doesn’t understand” it. A convenient catch-all for you.

              I don’t need a book of myths to tell me that pedophilia, polygamy and bestiality are wrong. I don’t need to go to church every Sunday to remind me not to steal, and to remain faithful to my wife. Most people also don’t need a church to have compassion, kindmess and humility; qualities noticably missing in many Christians, and other religeous groups.

              You carry on scratching at extracts from an old book to justify your prejudices.

              • In Defence of... says:

                David Berlinski, one of the world’s leading physicists, who is agnostic, boarders on atheism, and is leaning towards believing in God and the Bible as being true questions your position on sciences and evolution.

                Berlinski, writes in his book, “The Devil’s Delusion,” The attack on traditional religious thought, marks the consolidation in our time of science as the single system of belief in which rational men and women might place their faith, and if not their faith, then certainly their devotion.”

                Berlinski turns the scientific community’s (and their belief in evolution) cherished scepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions which he sums up perfectly.

                •Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.

                •Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.

                •Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.

                •Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.

                •Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.

                •Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.

                •Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.

                •Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.

                •Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

                • Sandy Bottom says:

                  So you believe what the old testament bible says about creationism, but you disavow the inconvenient bits of the old testament when they are used in a debate. I see. Typical.

                  • In Defence of... says:

                    I wanted to know what you thought about David Berlinski’s above comments. You question creationism, the Bible, and existence of God, but Berlinski puts the question right back to you.

                    I think you’re not open to having an honest discussion on the Scriptures and what they mean. There are some things in the Bible that make you go ‘hmmm.’ So it is very easy for you to also selectively pick Scriptures out of the Bible and manipulate them to support your point. Do I know everything in the Bible? No! Do I know everything in the Quran? No! I’m not going to pick our bad Scriptures in the Quran and say ‘see, you guys are bigots, haters, etc, etc.’ Especially if I don’t know the full meaning or background of the text. That is just simply wrong to do. Period! For anybody to use Scripture, that they don’t fully understand is wrong. The Leviticus Laws that you specifically talked about, the cutting of the hair, shaving, not eating meat, I know and studied this scripture. That is why I answered you it was given to the Jews. If you mention some other Leviticus Law Scripture, I may not have an answer because I may have not studied it. So I don’t disavow anything, not even the “inconvenient” bits as you put it. If, I understand it, I will attempt to explain it, certainly if you mislead Scripture. I didn’t use what the Bible says about Homosexuality in the old testaments in any of my comments.

                    My friend, you have to understand certain laws and rules were given to specific groups of people back in the Old Testament. By me saying that these laws do not apply to me, or today, is not me disavowing the significance of these scriptures for that era. I recognize them, I don’t understand all of them, but I will NEVER, disrespect Scripture, whether in the Bible or Quran to provide a point or to disapprove others, especially if I do not understand the Scripture in reference. So I am NOT one of these people, who pick and choose, to simply leave out inconvenient parts. But please respond to Berlinski’s view on scientific atheism.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  None of this makes even a LICK of sense.

                  Asking for proof of inexistence? Sorry, no, the burden is on those claiming, not those who don’t.
                  By this illogic, Thor and Mercury exist. Surely you’re not saying that… are you?

                  Just because quantum cosmology hasn’t answered the questions yet doesn’t mean that they’re not on the right track. And “not even close” is incorrect. They’re a heck of a lot closer than “God did it”.

                  The universe is “fine tuned” for the existance of life? Really? Is that why there’s nothing showing there’s any other life in the universe? Not saying there isn’t, but surely if the universe was “fine tuned” for life, there’d be evidence, no?

                  “Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.”

                  Absolutely incorrect. Scientists work off of data. Replicatable and observable evidence. This does NOT mean that they can’t have faith as well.

                  “Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.”

                  It absolutely has. Absolutely. This is a completely incorrect claim.

                  “Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.”

                  Evidence of this? You show none. However, we have AMPLE evidence that religiousness hasn’t always been a force for good.
                  Do we really want to compare atrocities?
                  And “the terrible twentieth century”?
                  What was so terrible about it?

                  “Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.”

                  Exactly the opposite. This is completely wrong. Science, as I mentioned, works off of data. The INSTANT the data refutes a theory or hypothesis, the theory or hypothesis is changed. This is the exact opposite of your claim. You are incorrect.

                  “Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.”

                  Again, you are wrong. Belief in something insubstantial and DISbelief in observable, replicatable data IS irrational.

                  “Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”

                  This, as with the others, is just another incorrect attack on science, made out of fear of being wrong.

                  Here’s the thing…

                  If your side wasn’t trying to force your beliefs onto everyone else, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

                  The whole thing is irrelevant, anyway, because other people shouldn’t have to follow the rules of your religion any more than you should have to follow the rules of Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism.

      • Frankie says:

        That is the Old Testament; the New Covenant (Christianity) dropped those practices.

        • Sandy Bottom says:

          See above. You can’t pick and choose. If you quote the bible in support of a stupid argument, the whole bible is fair game to be quoted back to you. Christians use the Old Testament and they believe it. They use it to justify creationism rather than evolution. They use it Adan and Eve as an argument against gay people. Both Old Testament. You can’t use the bible as your evidence and then say that over half of it doesn’t really apply.

          • Frankie says:

            Jesus quite clearly said that there was a New Covenant. Hence Christians eat pork, mix dairy and meat at the same meal, often do not get circumcised, and less often (I am guessing) sodomise each other – none of which bothers my Christian self. Nor am I aware of Jesus having said Gay Folk cannot marry each other, and neither does this bother me. Go for it Ginger and Ness.

            • Sandy Bottom says:

              He did not say it clearly. In fact Christian groups disagree on which bits of the old testament they believe in. Jesus is quoted many times saying that following the scriptures / old testament is correct. Christian groups all follow (i think) the seven laws of noah and the ten commandments. Then they disagree over the rest. You’ll notice in Christian churches they have the whole bible, not just the new testament.

              Plus, the bible thumpers love to bring up parts of the old testament in support of their anti gay agenda. Until they attempt to disavow the whole book.

  26. The Power of Words says:

    Our Heavenly Father is God of all, and as believers, we must stand for what is right, especially when it comes to blatant abominable practices and attempts to over-ride/ dis-regard what the Bible CLEARLY speaks against.

    All the lessons which God has caused to be placed on record in HIS HOLY WORD are for our warning and instruction. They are given to save us from deception and the evil traps of sin.

    Their neglect, or those who choose to ignore or disregard, will result in ruin to ourselves.

    • JD says:

      When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

      what do you think about that “lesson” from God

      • theothersidebda says:

        @JD – It is clear that you are grasping at straws by asking the same question over and over again DESPITE it all ready being explained to you above. Sounds like you need to go back to Google and copy and paste more questions about Scriptures you don’t understand but think it supports your argument.

        • Sandy Bottom says:

          It isn’t “explained above” though is it. The bible is clear. You are allowed to beat slaves almost to their death, because they are your property. God’s word. Crystal clear.

  27. Frankie says:

    18 (noes) + 12 (yeses) + 1 (Speaker) = 31. Who were the five missing MPs and why? I for one would like to know where all elected MPs stand on this issue. Bernews, could you kindly find out?

    • Bernews says:

      Sure, it’s buried somewhere in the 1st story which is rather long due to all the updates, so here is it again:

      The five that did not vote were: Craig Cannonier [OBA], Bob Richards [OBA], Nandi Davis [OBA], Glenn Blakeney [PLP], and Suzann Roberts Holshouser [OBA]. The first four were absent, and we seem to recall that Ms Roberts Holshouser was in the Speaker’s chair at the time.

      The Premier was in London, Minister Richards was in the House earlier but by the time this vote happened he had left to catch a flight to London for the meeting. Ms Davis and Mr Blakeney were absent the entire day, we have no idea why, but there was a prior notification of this on the Order Papers.

  28. Frankie says:

    I do wonder how much this frivolous, attention seeking exercise on Mr. Furbert’s part has cost the tax payer? Watch out Mr. Bean, he’ll be coming after your job shortly.

    • theothersidebda says:

      So when our elected representatives bring up concerns that he has heard from his constituents it is deemed frivolous? Personally, I think the representatives did a great disservice by not representing their constituents here. Now I say ‘think’ because no one has the true numbers, but I would hazard a guess (despite the same names on these blogs supporting gay marriage) that the majority of the voting public represented by these people, are actually against gay marriage. Again, I have no statistics to prove that, but that’s my feeling on public opinion. Perhaps we should find that out and if that is true, then as representatives of the public, they should have supported this amendment as presented by Mr. Furbert.

  29. Bewildered says:

    The PLP voted to discriminate.
    What a bunch of bigoted losers.Thank God,the PLP are not the govt,we would be in a dictatorship right now.
    OBA you are the people’s party!

    • theothersidebda says:

      The PLP did not vote to discriminate; they voted to clarify and to represent the views of the PEOPLE of Bermuda. And I dare say, it my belief that the majority of the voting public in Bermuda DO NOT support gay marriage. Adding Wayne’s amendment would have been the right thing to do if these legislatures were truly representing the majority of the people. By the OBA’s own admission, this law was not about gay marriage, so then why backpedal when clarification is sought?

      • Rick Rock says:

        The PLP certainly would never have passed a law like this that improves equality. They say they are for equal treatment for everyone, but when it comes down to it they have weasel words as justification to vote ‘no’.

  30. Kodak says:

    I hope Wayne does not have any gay or lesbian children!

  31. M#ff diver says:

    If the Queen was lesbian,would the monarchy come to an end?
    If gays and lesbians were all there were,would life exist in the next 120 years?
    In the beginning was there Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve?

    • Sandy Bottom says:

      Why are you quoting the Old Testament? I thought Christians supposedly don’t believe in that? Or do you just pick the convenient bits?

  32. Mike Hind says:

    Can anyone explain why other people have to follow the rules of your religion?

    Can anyone give me a good argument against the amendment to the HRA – or for marriage equality – that doesn’t involve someone else following the rules of your religion or boil down to “It’s yucky and I don’t like it” or some bizarre sophist question like “If there were only gays, where would we be”?

    Anyone at all?

  33. Bullseye says:

    I couldnt possibly make it through all this religious debate tonight. I will say that I find it puzzling that people will not fight the existence of God as hard as they will fight what He has to say. Apparently they know exactly what HE thinks, but they cannot argue his existence. smh.