Hahahahahahahahahahahhahhahhahahahaha

This will not affect everyone. Just the folks it will benefit.

And, even if what you say is true, so what? The definition of marriage has been changed many, many times. This isn’t a bad thing.

No youre just trying to change the foundational definition of society for everyone … whether they like it or not.

try a dictionary

toodles!

The “similarities” you have suggested between “separate but equal” Jim Crow laws and UK civil union legislation are spurious. One was a happy word that hid abuses of civil rights; the other signified expansion of legal rights to people who otherwise would not have them. The scenarios make for a poor parallel.

Re valid reasons for civil unions in Bermuda, once again I reiterate that I agree with you vis-a-vis same-sex marriage. I merely reject the implication that a civil union is some towering injustice. If anything, it is a step forward from what Bermuda already has. After all, there is the small matter of changing minds from a definition of marriage that captures hundreds of years of functional, if imperfect, tradition. Simply dismissing this as a cultural irrelevance is not going to persuade people that a working arrangement needs to be tinkered with. The logic that it is unfair to a gay couple to deny them the title of a marriage can just as easily be applied to other relationships which we do not sanction, e.g. polygamy.

Consider the challenges posed in changing our laws. Our Marriage Acts do not recognise same-sex unions. Civil union legislation provides a suitable drafting touchstone for prospective same-sex marriage legislation, if/once we as a society are to go ahead with that. It would make practical sense to borrow from English political and legal experience in this regard.

With respect, your initial reply did not clarify anything about paperwork. You stated that Bermudian “churches do not perform marriages.” They do perform marriages, and we agree that this is sanctioned by the government. But they have also provided this service since long before the advent of government licences.

There is absolutely no reason to call them civil unions.
None whatsoever. They are marriages.
What possible reason could there be to call them anything else?

As for the Church performing marriages, I’ve explained several times now. Without the legal paperwork, the stuff that comes from the Government to make it all proper and legal and stuff, it is NOT a marriage.
Thus, while they can make all that happen on behalf of the couple, the church cannot – without all the legal stuff, which is separate from the church itself – make a marriage happen.
If the paperwork isn’t done and the couple has a wedding in a church, it’s not a marriage.
Thus, the church doesn’t perform marriages.
I don’t know how to make it clearer.

The argument that the word marriage is religious, which you made with the “secular-religious” thing, is a false one.

Again, there is absolutely no valid reason to call these “civil unions” that I’ve heard so far.

Would you care to provide one?

See how easy that was?

Now, are you seriously going to insist that bringing up “separate but equal,” a doctrine which relegated black Americans to second-class facilities (when they were even available), and denied them basic rights of political representation, is an accurate analogy for the protections and recognitions afforded to same-sex couples by civil union legislation?

If so, you might understand why so many older church-goers are critical of a lot of what passes for advocacy for gay marriage. You will catch more flies with honey, friend.

Moreover, who said anything about church weddings lacking paperwork? You claimed that “Churches don’t perform weddings.” As a matter of law, that’s incorrect. They do perform marriages. As does the Registrar.

I think Bermudian same-sex couples should have the same option under the law – but if they could obtain civil unions, with the same legal privileges, how is that “unfair” or “unequal,” exactly? The contrast with “separate but equal” could not be more pronounced.

My experience with gay couples in other parts of the world is that they actually prefer the concept of a civil union – “marriage” is something done by their parents. The argument is terminological and cultural, then, not substantive.

Anyway. This seems to be the end of our chat. Take care.

I don’t understand what these posts have to do with what I said.

39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[a]”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

And now I will pray for all who love this corrupt world that we live in and pray that God will do a might work in you

And go have a wedding in a church and see if it’s legally a marriage without the legal paperwork.

That’s the whole point. The church is not the ONLY place that two people can get married. Therefore, they don’t own the word. Therefore, the call for civil unions for gay folks, while allowing straight atheists and members of other religions to call their relationships a marriage, is unfair and unequal.

As for your inconvenience line… It shows a complete misunderstanding of this situation. I don’t know how to have that conversation with you.

And again, churches do perform marriages. Read the applicable Acts.

Wow. Ok. I got nothing.

(And, again, churches do weddings.)

As to your third point, as a matter of fact, churches (in the form of clerics of several faiths) do perform marriages here. This is enshrined in our laws (since marriage is a legal institution, at least in this country) and reflects both Bermuda’s traditions and our cultural evolutions. That non-religious persons can be married as well is a reflection of the latter trend.

With respect, your suggestion that the “separate but equal” status of black Americans during Jim Crow is broadly similar to that of today’s gay Bermudians regarding civil unions glosses over some dramatic and substantial legal and social differences between them. I used to think the way you do on this as well, but analogizing the sheer injustice in the one to the relative inconvenience of the other is a disservice to the latter’s advocacy, frankly.

Re picking nits. If it becomes the case that people in Bermuda are eligible for civil unions that are in all legal respects equivalent to marriages, then I fail to see how an argument over the name of the concept is anything but a semantic exercise, seeing as how it does not preclude that relationship’s legal protections or the reality of its existence.

No one should be forced to follow the laws of someone else’s religion. That is the point here. No one is stopping anyone from believing what they want to believe. They’re simply trying to gain access to equal rights and privileges.
Those opposing have shown absolutely no valid reason to oppose this. At all.

Prior to the SSM movement, most major religions across the world also based marriage on a man/woman relationship that is united by faith in God. Even societies built on religious persecution and atheism maintain marriage between a man and a woman.

Historically, many countries who diametrically oppose each other on every other issue all came to the same independent conclusion… Marriage is between a man and a woman.

So did the whole world get together and make marriage laws and form social bonds based on religious bigotry, I think not…

The stance has always been pro people, gay or straight and against changing the fundamentals of marriage. Opposition doesn’t equal hate.

The religious don’t own the word or the concept of “Marriage”.
It is a legal construct.
Churches don’t perform Marriages.

That “secular-religious distinction” is not a fair one, as non-religious people can get married.

Nitpicking semantics doesn’t help anything. The “insinuation” is absolutely appropriate. People are being denied rights unfairly. Just because other people had it worse – and they did, I’m not denying it – doesn’t mean that this isn’t a similar situation.

As for the charge of bigotry?
When someone gives a real, valid argument against marriage equality, one that isn’t based on lies, misinformation or demanding that someone else follow the rules of their religion, we can have that discussion.

Until then, “bigotry” is an absolutely applicable description of this baseless denial of equal rights.

What is unfair is when folks expect anyone else to believe it.

Not really.

If a civil union is ruled in a court as equivalent to a marriage (as it was in the UK), we are talking about a secular-religious distinction rather than a euphemism for an unjust and racially discriminatory legal system.

There is a tremendous difference between the social and political disenfranchisement of blacks in the time of Bull Connor and that of Bermudian gays in the time of Sybil Barrington.

For the record I am in favour of allowing gay marriage here. But I wouldn’t be so quick to reach for inappropriate insinuations like the above, or so quick to charge with bigotry those who are critical of the idea.

EXACTLY!
That’s all WE’RE saying!

The problem is, those religious people keep refusing to leave other people alone! They refuse to respect other people’s rights of freedom FROM religion and keep trying to continue to deny rights to fellow citizens, based on their religion.

It’s not the Marriage Equality supporters that are instigating this conflict. They’re fighting back.

Equal Rights are not granted. They’re won.

No one is forcing any church to marry gay people. This is a fallacy made up by bigots who can’t put together a good argument against gay marriage other than “the bible tells me so”.

As for my atheism, I respect people’s religion and their right to believe whatever they want. What I, and others, have a problem with is when religious folks don’t respect other people’s right to not have to obey the rules and laws of someone else’s religion and use those rules and laws to deny rights and privileges to other people. That simply isn’t fair.

Same sex marriage should be looked at the same way they look at divorce. It goes against their rules, but doesn’t affect them in any way, so it’s allowed.

Sure they can, many do..and are much better parents than a momma with 8 baby daddies.

For those who say the Hotel should have held the event we can only assume that you also agree any and every Church in Bermuda that has a hall for rent of any kind, must without exception accept a reservation from a group wanting to hold an atheist rally or in perfect irony, a Gay marriage ceremony in their hall.

One can only hope.
Private business can do as they please, just like any tv station overseas can refuse to air hate mongering ads.

Education is the best cure for religion. From what I’ve seen here, bermudas educational system needs a serious overhaul.