Column: Who Is Dr Ryan T Anderson?

November 26, 2015

Anderson_Ryan[Opinion column written by Quinton B. Butterfield]

Who is Dr Ryan T. Anderson?

There is a saying that goes, “there are three sides to every story, your side, my side and the truth.” Ok, so I got that from a movie, but it is true.

Once again, Bermuda is at a divided crossroad thanks to same-sex marriage. And this time it is because there is a new forum to be held with a speaker named Dr Ryan T. Anderson.

Concerned Citizens of Bermuda would have you believe that Dr Anderson is an intellect, coming to Bermuda to give an unbiased, well researched talk about same-sex marriage, which in their words, “is not based on arguments founded in morality, theology nor tradition.” This is far from the truth.

Before I delve into this, however, I am not encouraging anyone not to attend the meetings, but you should know who you are dealing with before you go.

Dr Anderson is a part of an organization called The Heritage Foundation. If you go to their About page, you will see that they were founded in 1973 in the United States, and they call themselves a think-tank with a mission to further the cause of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values and a strong national defense.

If you are a person that follows American politics, then this list will look very familiar to you. It is a list of principles held by the far-right extremist politics of groups like the Tea Party [arguably one the most racist US political groups out there] and the Republican Evangelical crowd.

These are people that endorse open-carry guns, call President Obama all kinds of racist names, and fight against same-sex marriage, abortion, women’s rights and I suspect would like to see a theocracy established in the United States.

Furthermore, Dr Anderson’s bio on the Heritage Foundation’s website states that he “researches” and writes about marriage and religious liberty, and is a member of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, and The Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity [which advocate for advancing religious freedom, marriage, promoting child-centered education reform through parental choice, advocating work-based welfare reform, and developing patient-centered health care proposals to protect America from Obamacare].

I bring all this up so that it is clear that this man is a religious fanatic, and no matter how much Concerned Citizens tries to make it seem that this will not be based on “arguments founded in morality, theology nor tradition”, that is far from the truth.

So, now that this is established, let’s pretend that this will be a presentation from an intellect. It is clear that Dr Anderson has some well-regarded credentials. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree [in Music] from Princeton University, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude. He also received his Master’s degree and a Ph.D. from Notre Dame.

With those credentials, you would think that he would bring some sound, well-researched facts and information to the table and to the forums that are coming up. Concerned Citizens would have you believe that this is true.

If you look up some of the things that Dr Anderson has said, you will find things like, “Gays and lesbians undoubtedly have been discriminated against” and “heterosexuals are to blame for the breakdown in marriage, not homosexuals.” Doesn’t that make you feel all fuzzy inside. Rhetoric like this that he spews allows people to feel as if they are not feeding into discrimination, that they “understand the plight” of others, and they are having a “respectful” conversation. This is all part of the facade.

In July of this year Zach Ford wrote an article about Dr Anderson’s work. In this article he highlights the sly way that Dr Anderson frames his arguments. He likes to use the argument that marriage is about monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence. He then relies on the falsehood that same-sex couples cannot achieve these ideals.

He does not however mention that society is just breaking free from a history of anti-gay stigma, that did not allow these couple to live up to these characteristics, because of being ostracized by families, because of violence and because of the shame placed on them by their churches.

He also relies on the slippery slope ideas that same-sex marriage will lead to “other types” of relationships like polygamy or open relationships, but of course these things have nothing to do with the same-sex marriage issue. As a matter of fact these relationships already do exist; and also they would have no effect on other people’s relationships.

Dr Anderson also likes to play on the fears of “fatherless” relationships and studies that are based on zero facts or data, or studies that were created to swing opinion in a certain direction. For example, one study that he uses by Mark Regnerus, Douglas Allen and Donald Paul Sullins, showing the negative outcomes of same-sex parenting, was a biased study which used extreme situations where divorce had a negative effect on children and where there were obstructive family structures.

The Regnerus Fallout website also highlights aspects of this false report. The report was created and funded by the Witherspoon Institute [which has ties to the hate group, Family Research Council] to attempt to discredit 30 years of scientific research conducted by the American Psychological Association [see related links for more info]. Dr Anderson uses this false study, while ignoring controlled, scientific studies that show results from committed same-sex families, because it does not fit his narrative.

The reason that I am bringing all of this up is so that as an attendee, you can be informed of who Dr Ryan Anderson is and his tactics. Also, so that you will not fall for the way this is being presented, as a well-balanced, unbiased, theology-free presentation, which it is not.

This is a well-crafted attempt to placate those who are tired of the religious slant on this issue. However at the core of this is the same religious arguments that have been presented over and over again, just presented in a less dogmatic way.

Lastly, I would also like to warn the reader that I too have my biases. I am just trying to present the facts as I see it, but it is up to you to do your own research and form your own opinions concerning Dr Anderson, and the issue at large.

Related Links:

  • Meet Ryan Anderson, The Anti-LGBT ‘Scholar’ Peddling Junk Science To National Media: here
  • The Regnerus Fallout: here
  • Ryan T. Anderson Accidentally Highlights Weakness Of Lost Fight Against Marriage Equality: here

- Quinton Berkley Butterfield


20 Most Recent Opinion Columns

Opinion columns reflect the views of the writer, and not those of Bernews Ltd. To submit an Opinion Column/Letter to the Editor, please email Bernews welcomes submissions, and while there are no length restrictions, all columns must be signed by the writer’s real name.


Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (138)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Mike Hind says:

    Well put, sir.

    • The Truth says:

      A matter of perspective and opinion – nothing more.

      • Mike Hind says:

        With facts and evidence provided to back them up.

        • The Truth says:

          All biased and subjective to say the least – next.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Nope. That’s what your side does.

            And it seems you’re back to dismissing things that prove your position wrong, out of hand.

            Why is it so hard to have an honest discussion about this?

            • The Truth says:

              It is biased as the author has clearly stated his position and of course has found information to backed up that position. How is that not honest?

              • Mike Hind says:


                Do you actually think I’m saying that Quinton isn’t being honest? Is that how you read this?

      • Black Soil says:

        EVERYONE has the RIGHT to be married. Ryan is little more than a well dressed bigot.

        • Megan says:

          What’s your definition of “married”?

          What’s your definition of “everyone”?

        • HW says:

          This clearly is not the case and you’re either severely uninformed or being intellectually dishonest.

    • PWH says:

      No one is trying to hide anything… all one has to do is google his name and see a ton of stuff on him…

      Those who hate the results of the Regnerus study (that show that children brought up in homes with a mother and a father thrive better on all levels then children brought up in same sex parent homes and single parent homes)…have tried to get him discredited and fired from his teaching post… however they have not succeeded because his study methods and results are from a well designed and executed scientific study, and have held up to peer reviews… so the University have stood by him. See the results of the study at this link…

      Many would disagree with your comment about the research of the American Psychological Association, including a past president of this association, see link below

      • Quinton Berkley Butterfield says:

        Hi everyone, yes please look at the article sited by PWH, and then view the to see how this report was flawed. Then make your own opinion from the information you have. Do not rely on me, rely on the facts.

      • Quinton Berkley Butterfield says:

        Cliffnotes: Yes, children in stable households fare better as described in the report. These were households that had parents that had been together for 18+ years. Unfortunately, the report compared that with 2 respondents where there was a lesbian couple together for 18+ years and zero gay men who were in a relationship for 18+ years. And this is out of 15,000 respondents.

        That is like saying all black people are thugs, because 2 out of 15,000 black people committed a crime.

      • StraightGrandmother says:

        No, actually Regnerus did NOT go unscathed at his University. he was recently reviewed and the Head of the Department rated him unsatisfactory, it went all the way up to the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts (which houses Sociology). His own school evaluated his study and found it methodologically flawed. Do read the Dr Musick’s Report on the Regnerus Fallout site, second to the last document on this page

        In fact the day before Regnerus was to testify as an “Expert” The head of the Sociology Department sent out a press release distancing the Sociology Department from Regneru’s study.

        See in court you can’t lie you are under oath. he was creamed in court and the Republican appointed Federal Judge wrote in his opinon that he gave no weight to Regnerus’ testimony and considered him fringe. If you would enjoy reading more about Regners here is an excellent link.

        I am glad that Ryan T Anderson on twitter he is @RyanTAnd will instead be giving his talk in a church, that is where it belongs anyway. He is a up and coming devout Catholic who carries the churches dogma. BTW did you know that Heritage Foundation is strongly Catholic? I watched the retirement ceremony live of the outgoing original founder, invited to speak was a priest who waxed on how they had taken so many trips together around the world. Family Research Council is Evangelical Heritage Foundation is Catholic. The Head of Family research Council said at the retirement celebration that he meets, I think it is every Thursday (Wednesday?) with the head of Heritage Foundation.

        On that link I gave for Regnerus additional Reading you can search for Paul Sullins also. He put out an anti gay parenting study, but it was only published in a Pay to Publish Journal. Search for Paul Sullins on FamilyInequality blog. Oh did I mention that Paul Sullins is actually Father Paul Sullins? Yeah he is a Catholic Priest at Catholic University, LOL!

        Whenever Ryan T Anderson opens his mouth and says that gay parents make children worse off and the social science says that, don’t believe him. See he HAS to rely on that, because he has got literally nothing else. Don’t let him pull the wool over your eyes. I gave you two good websites for further reading.

    • Happy Onion says:

      Thank you!

  2. Sickofantz says:

    Thank you for wirting this Quinton. It is extremely well researched.

  3. Starting point says:

    Well done, and well presented Quinton.

    The proposed speakers method is intentionally designed to hide its theological presupposition. Even worse, the Bermudian group, looking to bring him in, are completely aware of this fact and are in fact acting from a position of intentional deception, which to be honest, is more alarming than the speaker itself.

    • Not exactly says:

      It was very telling that they tried to book the hotel under false pretence. Even they know that they should be ashamed of their bigoted views.

    • StraightGrandmother says:

      That is absolutely right.

  4. welllll says:

    Thank you Quinton. I have been doing some research myself into Dr Anderson it’s refershing to see someone comming to the same conclusions!!

  5. Balanced says:

    Thank you for this opinion! I hope others take note.

  6. Bermudiana says:

    Not too sure this matters. Mr. Butterfield.

    Many Bermudians, despite their pro-Obama proclamations, are more aligned with the likes of the Heritage Foundation and Tea Party Republicans.

    This is evidenced in their views not just on gays, but also regarding immigrants/foreigners and people who differ from them in terms of appearance and ideology. Cries of ‘taking our country back’ and categorizing who is a so called ‘real Bermudian’ is no different than the characteristics and rhetoric of the US groups mentioned.

    If Bermuda was a US State the majority would appear to vote for a bombastic and divisive individual such as Trump as evidenced by the support for a similar type of politician right here on our shores nowadays, as well as in the recent past.

    • James says:

      I’ve been saying this for a long time. The PLP—and its supporters—are really Bermuda’s far-right party.

      • Billy Mays says:

        Exactly right, James. The Democratic Party stands for the protection of the rights of minorities, whether they be religious, sexual, racial, etc. The fact that blacks are a minority in the US makes many PLP supporters misinterpret that protection of minority rights as support of black Americans per se. In fact, the PLP is far more aligned with the republicans and the extreme right wingers who don’t support the rights of women, immigrants, LPGT, non-Christians, etc. Beyond race, the PLP lot have little in common with President Obama.

    • Walk in their shoes says:

      Perhaps, but Bermuda’s voters (and the political parties for that matter) don’t really do the left wing/right wing thing – our politics ‘evolved’ in a very different fashion to our cousins in the US.

  7. Shari-Lynn Pringle says:

    A well-written and thorough article. Now let’s scurry over to the Church of choice and hear how he spins this for (I suspect) a predominantly black crowd. Boy we sure loves us some travelin circus!

    • Sarah says:

      I’m Caucasian, but think I might go just to make a fuss and some interesting commentary.

      • StraightGrandmother says:

        [I hope my comment gets approved it is long but that is necessary to provide the hard facts this discussion needs, and that takes some time & space]

        Oh great! If you do go, make sure and read up on the Sociological Studies Ryan T Anderson is bound to cite as proof of his argument.
        Dr Cohen was cited in Court Briefs By the way.

        Suggest you print up and bring with whatever you find is the most important from the Family Inequality website. It is always helpful in a public setting to be able to read something as so often times we get nervous speaking extemporaneously in front of a large group.

        The American Sociological Association spent not just one page or two pages but several pages pointing out the methodological flaws in the Mark Regnerus research, in a brief to our United States Supreme Court. Both Regnerus and Father Paul Sullins are Sociologists so that would be their National Professional Organization’s opinion on the Regnerus research. The Sullins study came out to late to make it into the court case if I remember right.
        Here is their press release and inside the press release at the end of the first line is the full brief to the court.

        I know exactly who Ryan t Anderson is going to cite. Next is Joe Price (Mormon, Brigham Young Univ), Doug Allen (Evangelical out of Canada), Catherine Pakaluk (Catholic Ave Maria University). All 3 of these guys are not even Sociologists, they are Economists, LOLZ! Now Price and Allen testified as Expert Witnesses in the DeBore Federal Michigan Trial. They.Were.Creamed! during cross examination. On our side Dr Michael Rosenfeld from Stanford University testified as an expert. Boy did Rosenfeld ever destroy Price & Allen. In fact here is exactly what the Judge said in his ruling,
        “Even Regnerus recognized the limitations of the NFSS. In his expert report, Regnerus acknowledged that “any suboptimal outcomes may not be due to the sexual orientation of the parent” and that “[t]he exact source of group differences” are unknown. Defs.’ Ex. 28 at 5. Moreover, of the only two participants who reported living with their mother and her same-sex
        partner for their entire childhood, Regnerus found each of them to be “comparatively well adjusted on most developmental and contemporary outcomes.” Id. at 11
        The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 “study” was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it “essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society” and which “was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.”
        …While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged. Additionally, the NFSS is flawed on its face, as it purported to study “a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18-39) who were raised in
        different types of family arrangements” (emphasis added), but in fact it did not study this at all,as Regnerus equated being raised by a same-sex couple with having ever lived with a parent who had a “romantic relationship with someone of the same sex” for any length of time. Whatever Regnerus may have found in this “study,” he certainly cannot purport to have undertaken a
        scholarly research effort to compare the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples with those of children raised by heterosexual couples. It is no wonder that the NFSS has been widely and severely criticized by other scholars, and that Regnerus’s own sociology department at the University of Texas has distanced itself from the NFSS in particular and Dr. Regnerus’s views in general and reaffirmed the aforementioned APA position statement.

        The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. Marks’s testimony is largely unbelievable. He characterized the overwhelming consensus among sociologists and psychologists who endorse the “no differences” viewpoint as “group think,” by which he said he meant a politically correct viewpoint that the majority has accepted without subjecting it to proper scientific scrutiny.

        So remember these names, Joe Price, Doug Allen & Loren Marks and giving testimony under oath and subject to cross examination what the Judge felt about them. Federal judge, old, appointed by Regan or Bush I think.
        Here is the link to the Court Ruling double click on that blury first page and it will then download to a .pdf file. All the Sociologists (and economists) commentary starts at page 4
        Print it up and take it with you, highlighted.

        He might just throw in a new study that is simply a rehashing of the Sarantakos study, by Dr Walter Schumm. In the Michigan ruling by Judge Friedman the Judge talks about the Sarantakos study. Sarantakos wrote in his study that the children with gay parents were picked on in school and nobody would play with them at recess because their parents were gay. Here is a link to the Sarantakos study.I would probably take the Sarantakos study along with, having highlighted the section where he talks about how poorly the children were treated in schhol as well as when he talks about he would like to test the teachers to se how biased they are.

  8. The Truth says:

    When will those who champion diversity truly understand the meaning of the word? They shout inclusion and equal, but when anyone has any thought/opinion which differs from their position, they are called “zealots”, “uninformed” and “sheep”.

    Believe in God – don’t believe in God – it doesn’t matter. The issue is – - majority rules in a democracy, so until you can get your business minded, America’s Cup focused government to abandon the idea of re-election due to their lack of support from the zealot, Bible thumping Church sect in this country, I guess you are just stuck.

    But that’s just one man’s opinion – just like the author of this article – savvy?!

    • Mike Hind says:

      Again, it’s not the opinions that people have a problem with, it’s the denial of equal rights. That’s where the problem is. It’s not the difference of opinion, it’s the facts that one side is supporting the denial of rights to a group of their fellow citizens for no valid reason.
      They can believe whatever they want. They just can’t demand that others follow the rules of their belief.

      • Keepin' it Real!...4Real! says:

        What makes you an authoritarian on this subject?

        • jt says:

          What makes Dr. Anderson an authority on the subject?

          • Keepin' it Real!...4Real! says:

            I figured no one could intelligently answer a simple question.

          • Keepin' it Real!...4Real! says:

            Just to clarify…I’m not referring to Ryans agenda in any form…read my other posts and you’ll see where I’m coming from.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Nothing at all.
          I never claimed to be an “authoritarian” [sic] on this subject.

          (and that’s not the word you’re looking for.)

          Why do you ask?
          Are you saying that I have to be an authority on something if I want to speak out on it?

      • The Truth says:

        Mister Ukulele:

        That’s when the rubber meets the road – agreed! In your comment above, you state that the denial of rights to a group … for no valid reason.”

        That’s the problem – there is the opinion/subjective piece right there – who is to say that their reason is valid or not? You?

        That’s why this subject will always be a problem – - those in favour of same sex marriage will always call “foul” when it comes to their opponents who stand on moral principle or religious ideals – - and on the other hand, those who oppose same sex marriage will always call “foul” when it comes to the concept of diversity and inclusion.

        It is a circle of never-ending bull – - – They will never think the way you do and you will never change your position – stalemate.

        And to your last comment – “they just can’t demand that others follow the rules of their belief” – I say this – - when playing in for a championship (boxing, wrestling, etc.), the rules favour the champion – meaning he/she doesn’t have to win, they just don’t need to lose.

        In this case, the status qua (champion) is NOT same sex marriage and all your opponent needs to do is stay on their feet.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Equal rights are never granted. They are won.
          “It’s the status quo” is not a valid reason to oppose marriage equality. Unjust laws get changed.

          As for who gets to say what is valid? Common sense.
          If someone gives an argument and then runs away at the first opposition, their argument is invalid.
          If someone uses a lie to support their argument, it is invalid.
          If someone resorts to personal attacks when faced with opposition, their argument is invalid.
          If logical fallacies are used to support the argument, it is invalid.
          If the argument is made without any sort of evidence to back it up, it is invalid.

          This is the problem. There hasn’t been a valid argument made against marriage equality. Not one that stands up to any sort of scrutiny.
          The arguments FOR it are many and most are easily backed up and supported, and thus, valid.

          If you would like to propose an argument against marriage equality that you think is valid, I’d love to hear it and discuss it with you.

        • Mike Hind says:

          And, for the record, I change my position on subjects all the time, when shown evidence that I’m wrong.
          When I am shown a valid argument against my position, I look at it and change my position.

          That’s how discussion and debate and conversation works!

        • Mike Hind says:

          Anything? Or will this be just yet another case of you posting something then running away when asked questions you can’t answer?

  9. SANDGROWNAN says:

    Well done Quinton.

  10. Miguelito says:

    Heritage Foundation? Good Gawd! We surely don’t need ‘em here in Bermuda. Get lost.

  11. LaVerne Furbert says:

    This is where I stopped reading “I bring all this up so that it is clear that this man is a religious fanatic, and no matter how much Concerned Citizens tries to make it seem that this will not be based on “arguments founded in morality, theology nor tradition”, that is far from the truth.” But, everybody is entitled to his/her opinion.

    • jt says:

      Absolutely, so long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of others. But that’s really the whole point, isn’t it?

    • cup of tea anyone? says:

      nice try lawern!

      have a cup of tea


    • Portia says:

      Laverne is right. So after listing some of the organizations that Dr. Anderson has been a part of, and some of the work he has been involved in (none of which are illegal or objectionable) you somehow come to the conclusion that he is a religious fanatic? Are you kidding me?? Do you even know what that means? You are honestly comparing this man to extremists who fly planes into buildings and blow up sites around Paris? Because THAT is actually what a fanatic is.

      It is also plain that the “research” cited in your article are nothing more than subjective, politically-slanted opinion pieces rather than factual, proven science. Rather than swaying anyone, you’re only preaching to your own choir of supporters and letting everyone else see what your true intention is – to smear this speaker before he even arrives on the Island. But since he will be here, I suggest you confront him yourself with your “findings”.

      This Island is getting more ridiculous every day.

      Peace out.

      • Come Correct says:

        “You are honestly comparing this man to extremists who fly planes into buildings and blow up sites around Paris? Because THAT is actually what a fanatic is.”

        The CIA are religious fanatics? No, wait, I get it. You believe a man hiding in a mountain cave on dialysis, hunted for over ten years, eventually “found” in his house, “killed” by seal team 6, all members of which died in a “helicopter crash”, given a secret burial at sea that not one US sailor witnessed, organized 19 hijackers already in the US to take down the WTC and attack the Pentagon. I bet you also believe something the equivalent to a giant flying coke can van slice through a steel structure building designed to withstand the impact of a 747. Don’t let science get in the way of your Islamic hysteria.

      • anydeeng says:

        Hi Portia… the word you are looking for is terrorist not fanatic. Let me explain for you hun.

        Fanatic – A person with extreme or uncritical enthusiasm.

        Now i wont assume that you know what uncritical means based on your ridiculous understanding of what the word fanatic means… so let me help you to help yourself.

        Uncritical – Not guided by the standards of analysis.

        Now think about this and read it again. And on the second or third time around try to understand that no one ever cared about anyones opinion. Its the infringement of your fellow citizens rights that most people care about.

    • Zevon says:

      Well, you wouldn’t rent your houses to gay people, as you once proudly announced. So we know where you stand on it.

  12. Keepin' it Real!...4Real! says:

    Some admit they seek radical ‘transformation’ of society
    Published: 06/30/2015 at 8:25 PM


    • Quinton Berkely Butterfield says:

      World Net Daily is a site of conspiracy theories. They also believe Barack Obama is not a US citizen. Yeah, you need to reevaluate your sources.

      • brigadooner says:

        but Quinton, ‘SOME ADMIT!!!’ that means it must be true.

  13. rodney says:

    Quinton, Is same -sex marriage right or wrong? Do you support same-sex marriage? How do your views differ from your up bringing? What’s brought about this 180 degree turn around? This I find to be very strange . We up hold the 5th commandment: to honor our father and mother. It is this patent that we believe that we should follow .Upon leaving the home of our father and mother, we seek to set up our own home after that patent. We might desire to differ from the patent, but that’s is the patent. Again, no one is denying the rights of those who are of a different sexual orientation ,we are just saying that marriage should remain between just a man and a woman . Please note that marriage is not a human right .

    • Quinton Berkely Butterfield says:

      Yes I do support same sex marriage. My upbringing was very religious but I have broken free from religion and faith. Not really sure how the 5th commandment fits into all of this. I mean I see what you are saying, but I believe everyone has the right to determine their destiny as they see fit. Whether that is to be married, not be married, have children, not have children, marry someone of the opposite sex, marry someone of the same sex…..why would anyone let the 5th commandment, “honor they mother and father”, have any bearing on their relationship choices. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

      • Quinton, It makes no sense to you , just because you don’t fully understand the total ramifications of your actions. As you already know, that the first 4 commandments point to God, and the last 6 relate to our relationship with our fellow man. So any wrong action such as ,murder, stealing, committing adultery, bearing false witness , and coveting all reflect back on the family and your up bringing. That is why, the 5th commandment is so important. It starts out , built upon the foundation of a father and mother . You being who you are, How does this stand sit with your father and mother? and why do you think that is so? Let’s have a real conversation on this issue. Religion and Faith is all we have to hold on to. Don’t let it you. Come back to Jesus and make peace with Him.

        • Quinton Berkely Butterfield says:


        • Sarah says:

          Bloody religious brainwashing zealots. Terrible.

          • Come Correct says:

            The “my imaginary friend is better than yours” argument lol.

            • Jesus can be your friend too.

              • Come Correct says:

                I’ve witnessed far to many of his friends die in his name. I’m good, I’m selective with my company.

                • Just call on His name, and He would be right there. You might be selective with your friends, but Jesus wants to be your friend.

                  • friend says:

                    Id honestly rather go to my grave alone, in the knowledge that I as a non religious person, lived my best life, didnt use a work of fiction to persecute anyone, and loved my brothers and sisters as best i could.
                    I believ a certain pastor of a certain Sheinchurch should be ashamed of herself, and other religious leaders too. their rhetoric has no compassion towards other humans.

            • Zevon says:

              No. The argument is “I have no imaginary friends and I don’t expect to have to listen to rules made up by your imaginary friends”.

      • Debbie says:

        It’s not and never has been about religion some believers have gotten it mixed up its about relationship with Our creator, religion is what confuses people, if you chose not to believe it is your prerogative your choice but one day every knee shall bow.

    • brigadooner says:

      Sheesh. It’s to find where to begin with this guy eh?

      Although Quinton has already made excellent points I’ll just add…if ‘honouring our father and mother’ meant never having differing opinions or choosing differently than those who raised you than Jesus is just as just about as bad as you can be.

      Among the many many anecdotes from the Bible I could cite I think its sufficient to mention That Jesus radically broke away from the religion of his parents and created a completely contradicting faith to that of his parents.

      • Quinton Berkely Butterfield says:

        Exactly!! Jesus himself didn’t even get married and “follow the 5th commandment”. Rubbish.

        • Quinton, you missed what I was saying. Even though Jesus did not get married , he still honored his father and mother. To had married a man, would be to dis-honor them. Don’t get caught up in the stream going down river. Swim to the shore, and find safety.

    • ..... says:


      You said, “again, no one is denying the rights of those who are of a different sexual orientation”.

      So they should be given THE RIGHT to get married.

    • Mike Hind says:

      “Again, no one is denying the rights of those who are of a different sexual orientation ,we are just saying that marriage should remain between just a man and a woman…”

      Which is denying equal rights to loving couples of the same sex.

      Your sentence contradicts itself.

      • Mike, When in the U.S.A. I drive on the right hand side of the road. Why can’t I do that in Bermuda ? It might cause confusion on the road, but I want it, and it’s my right to have what I want. For the safety of everyone that uses the road, we must agree to which side of the road we will drive. Same for marriage. It has been man and woman, at least it started out that way. Mike, I believe you can find a loving woman to share your life with.

        • anydeeng says:

          Rodney youre a jack***.

          And somewhere deep down you know it.

          You bible thumpers have collectively caused the most suffering on earth…

          • HW says:

            Another post that is either completely ignorant of facts or purposely intellectually dishonest.

            I’d like you to define bible thumpers first but if you mean all Christians then you’re severely uninformed

        • Quinton Berkely Butterfield says:

          Um, Mike is married to a woman. See how your ignorance clouds you. All your comments make me sad. I wish you all the best in life cousin. Even while you live in your small world.

        • Mike Hind says:

          What does driving on whichever side of the road have to do with this?

          Are you saying that marriage equality is unsafe? If so, how? If not, what ARE you saying?

          And I’m married. Have been for 17 years.

          I know you’re just lashing out, though. I forgive you.

  14. shutthemdown says:

    Hey Quinton..

    You don’t have to go just incase you thought otherwise.

    Not everyone sees things in the same light as you.

    Get over it

    • Quinton Berkely Butterfield says:

      I haven’t decided if I will go or not. Should be entertaining. We shall see.

  15. Coffee says:

    The good Doctor sides with at least 80% of the total world population of right thinking people on the meaning of marraige .

    • Family Man says:

      You mean those bastions of freedom and human rights like Uganda, Gambia, Saudi Arabia, ISIS, and Pakistan?

      • Daylilly says:

        Just a note, most “free thinking” countries are predominantly Christian.

        • Come Correct says:

          Isn’t that like an oxymoron? How can you put free thinking and *insert religion here* in the same sentence?

    • Hmmmm says:

      Coffee… Just out of interest where did you get that number? Every poll I’ve found has it 65 -35 in favor of same sex marriage . As an example.

    • Zevon says:

      And yet democracies all over the world have moved to allow it.

    • I Don't Think So says:

      80% of right thinking people?
      how did you arrive at that number?

      • Come Correct says:

        Here I am wondering how he arrived at right thinking people.

  16. Mike Hind says:

    Whole lot of as populum arguments here.


  17. D says:

    Marco A said (November 26, 2015):

    Henry, I think you are absolutely right when you write, “Anyone who denies the existence of God is a Satanist, not an atheist.” When you deny God exists, you also deny God’s “absolute spiritual ideals — love, truth, justice, goodness, beauty, harmony — pure and unalloyed.”

    This is common these days though, the world is full of these nihilistic God-haters.

    I’ve recently done a few jobs for private customers who were obvious atheists. Sometimes its as easy as observing the complete lack of fire in their eyes to determine their religious beliefs (science and ego worship), and hearing them speak to determine their political views (emasculated/ snobby = leftist).
    Yet, what is disturbing is that there is a common theme in their homes that I am finding – which is a mockery of God. I keep finding bobble-head Jesus’s, sock puppet Jesus’s, etc.
    And in typical leftist fashion, the snotty Charles Dawkin’s-like anti-religion books are not far away, maybe coupled with a few psychology books (because all these people are sick, maybe they try to heal themselves with endless psychology reading).
    If this isn’t Satanic I don’t know what is. This isn’t a disbelief in God, this is a cowardly rebellion against God. Out of all the things to mock, ‘atheists’ choose Jesus? The Son of God who died to show He loved us? What sad degenerates.

    Also, they mock the One who is loved intimately and dearly by many devout people all over the world in a way which words cant describe, and they do it with a smugness and self-righteousness that lacks any scruple.
    People have literally lost their souls.

    - See more at:

    • Mike Hind says:

      I don’t mock God. Nor do I hate Him.
      I just don’t believe in Him.

      There’s a difference.

      • HW says:

        So you believe everything we see is an accident and all matter and life came from nothing and was caused by nothing for no reason? Wow Mike I did not realize you were a man of such strong FAITH!

        I wish I had that much faith. And yet Christians are mocked for believing in God…your position is way more far fetched for me to believe.

        • Mike Hind says:

          My faith, or lack thereof, has absolutely no bearing on this topic.

          Nor should yours.

          Getting into a discussion about Creationism is pointless and off topic.

    • friend says:

      Wow. You sure do assume a lot! I guess you shouldnt care what others do. You shouldnt snoop on others bookshelves, in their cupboards, or determine what is behind their eyes. you sound pathetic and needy, holding others up like that. you should be ashamed of yourself.

  18. Quinton, Don’t let the support of others be the “Marker” that you go by. In this case, those who support same sex marriage are wrong.

    • Zevon says:

      Nah. The right wing jackbooted extremists are wrong.

    • swing voter says:

      Go back to your 2nd home Rodney!

      • And just where might that be. Do you want to come with me.? Please use your real name if you are a Man. Otherwise, enjoy walking around in your dress.

        • brigadooner says:

          and what if ‘Swing Voter’ is a woman? I see you’re sexist too.

          • If she is a woman, “then enjoy walking around in your dress is an appropriate statement. Or has the DRESS now become an acceptable part of a man’s wardrobe now? Tell me, how far are we going to take this? Will one of the man in a same sex marriage walk down the aisle in a wedding dress? What about you using your real name?

            • brigadooner says:

              You have a great ability to avoid the main point of argument don’t you? Its not the dress that I was saying was sexist it was your your statement ‘use your real name if you are a Man.’ Thus equating courage with masculine and cowardice with feminine

    • Mike Hind says:

      Why are we wrong?
      Do you have a reason that doesn’t involve other people having to obey the rules of your personal choice of religion?
      Would you be ok with having to obey the rules of someone else’s religion?

      • Come Correct says:


      • Mike, You have spoken a lot on this issue. Let carry your thought to it’s end. Remove all rules, as you just said and let everyone do what ever they want. To allow same-sex marriage means that you would have to support those who might want something again different from you.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Nope. No it doesn’t.

          First off, I didn’t say “remove all rules”. At all. That is not a true statement.
          I asked if you think other people should have to follow the rules of your religion and whether or not you would be ok being forced to follow the rules of someone else’s religion. Not once have a ever said “remove all rules”.
          You didn’t answer the questions, either, so this isn’t actually carrying my thought to its end.

          What allowing same sex marriage simply means is that two people who love each other can share a life together with the same rights and privileges the rest of us share.

          That’s it. It will affect no one else in any way.

          What “something again different” are you talking about?

          • Mike, I mean that others may prefer other types of arrangements, and we through the courts will have to make room for them. The court through it’s ruling today has implemented civil unions. Now the next step is marriage, but marriage has always been between a man and a woman. That is the principle meaning of a marriage. The court would now have to re-define marriage. But it won’t stop there. Once made law , how dear a minister speak out against your relationship. He will surely land in court. But it won’t stop there. You have been members of your church all your life, and now you want to get married, but they are refusing to marry you. It will end up in court, and the church will be forced to marry you or shut their doors. That is the end that we are headed for.

            • Mike Hind says:

              “I mean that others may prefer other types of arrangements, and we through the courts will have to make room for them.”

              Such as? This is why I asked.

              “The court through it’s ruling today has implemented civil unions”
              No, they didn’t. That’s a misrepresentation of what happened today.

              “Now the next step is marriage, but marriage has always been between a man and a woman. That is the principle meaning of a marriage.”

              No. It hasn’t. Even in the bible, it describes many different meanings of the word. This is an untrue statement.

              “The court would now have to re-define marriage.”

              Why is this bad? Society has redefined marriage many, many times in the past.
              The last time, it worked out pretty well.

              “But it won’t stop there. Once made law , how dear a minister speak out against your relationship. He will surely land in court”

              Hasn’t happened in the states. Westboro Baptist Church does it all the time.
              This is another untrue statement.

              “You have been members of your church all your life, and now you want to get married, but they are refusing to marry you. It will end up in court, and the church will be forced to marry you or shut their doors. That is the end that we are headed for.”

              And here’s another. This hasn’t happened and it won’t happen.
              Churches aren’t being forced to marry people. This is untrue.

              Do you have anything other than fearmongering to make your point?

              Why is it so hard to support your position with honesty and integrity?

            • Mike Hind says:

              Any chance of getting you to answer my questions?

              • Hi Mike, I don,t spend all day at the computer. History is repeat with stories of these types of issues. You said,” not yet”, and you are correct, but it is coming. I just hope when it happens you would stand with those who would than be put into prison and fined for speaking their religious beliefs. Two Words and a Coma only wanted sexual orientation added into the Human Rights Act, not marriage . Now that it is Marriage, why won’t it be marriage in the church of their choice. And why wouldn’t their choice over ride that of the church that wants to stop them? The rule of Law can change many things, for the right or the wrong. Check it out, it is happening in other places around the world. The Bible speaks against same sex relationships. It will become illegal to stand in the pulpit and speak out against something that is -will be Law. What than Mike? Will the church become a Public Place, where this type of talk cannot take place? Check out history Mike, it has happened in the past. We have a lot to talk about Mike.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Its not happening around the world. That’s simply not true.
                  If you’re going to make statements like that, you have to back them up with examples.
                  You can’t though, because the statements you’ve made are false.

                  Unless you can prove me wrong with actual evidence, I have to say that you are spreading lies and bearing false witness.

                  • Mike, You being who you are should be able to google cases such as this on your computer. Sweden and Australia are just two countries where ministers are being taken to court for speaking out against homosexuality. Mike, Why all the baby steps ? Why not have someone apply to the Registry and be refused , and than appeal the case to the Supreme Court, and have the Marriage Law, declared unconstitutional. Deal Done! From this point forward, all cases will be fought in the court room, because ministers of the gospel will continue to speak against it as being wrong, and condemned in the Bible. First , a warning is sent, than a fine. The two last steps are imprisonment and death. We are nearing the end .Mike, Where will you stand, if in our life time, things reach this point?

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      Links? You have to back these claims up!
                      The burden of proof is on you!

                      So? Got any?

                      Or can we dismiss your claims as baseless lies that you made up?

                      I’m guessing we can.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  And the questions I asked were:

                  Why are we wrong?
                  Do you have a reason that doesn’t involve other people having to obey the rules of your personal choice of religion?
                  Would you be ok with having to obey the rules of someone else’s religion?

                  • Mike, It looks like we are becoming good friends. Even though we differ, we are still talking, that is good. Out side of what the bible says, I can not provide you any other evidence to prove my case. I accept the Bible as the word of God. The Bible does not support same-sex relationships, or marriage .Is the world now unisex? There is no boy or girl, male or female. You can just simple declare your self to be who ever you want to be. Based on the argument of discrimination, all the laws in the world now can be said to discriminate against someone. Can the adult man who is in love with a thirteen year old girl , now claim that , if only the law was changed to lower the age of consent, he can now be with the one whom he loves. What does he need to have his way, more votes, marches, or petitions? Everywhere, everyday we are all discriminated against, in some way shape or form .How far are we going to take this?

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      Key word: consent. That is why your argument is invalid. Paedophilia, as has been mentioned repeatedly, has no place in this conversation, as we are talking about consenting adults.

                      Your arguments are false and dishonest.

                      I think your bible has something to say about that. The whole “false witness” thing.

                    • Mike, Consent is only between adults? Change the law, and it can be between anyone. Why not? Homosexuality was once against the law, and the law changed , So to follow your argument, prostitution, should be legal. It is a consenting agreement between two adults. If we are going to live just by the law, can’t we with a little influence change laws to whatever we want. Mike, my argument is that with a change of law, that which was once illegal, could be made legal, regardless of age.

                    • Mike Hind says:

                      This is nothing more than a distraction from the conversation.

                      Homosexuality being illegal was wrong and this wrong was corrected. The reason it was wrong is because it harmed no one and was between two consenting adults.

                      All the other things you are talking about are completely different because they cause harm to others and, thus, won’t ever be changed.

                      Just as there is no valid reason for opposing same sex marriage, there is no valid reason to support the removal of consent laws.

                      The scenario you are proposing is a false one that could never be an extension of marriage equality.

                      It is nothing more than an easily and previously debunked bit of scaremongering, the slippery slope argument.

                      It is false and it is dishonest.

  19. Adrian says:

    Thanks Quinton – food for thought!

  20. Edward says:

    The most forgotten fact is, that at the end of the day, most of us are just not LGBT and we aren’t going to be in the near or far future! That common fact, which is not debatable, will reassert itself in a matter of years:)

    Here in The United States, that fact will reassert itself in November of 2016 when Democrats will lose the White House simply because the rest of us, who are not LGBT, are tired of hearing all the nonsense from these activists!

    It’s one thing to proclaim yourself LGBT, it’s quite another thing entirely to force everyone else who isn’t to conform to your mindset…

    And if we don’t…

    To take our freedom away!

    • Mike Hind says:

      No one is forcing anyone else to be LGBT. You’re talking nonsense.

  21. Ace says:

    Same sex couples can never, ever, naturally have kids. Therefore their relationships differ from the average heterosexual and they should not call their union “marriage.” The piece by the author above is hateful and full of lies about the Tea Party and about Ryan Anderson.

    • Zevon says:

      There are many heterosexual couples who also can never have children. Whether or not you can have children is absolutely irrelevant as to whether or not you should be able to be married.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Procreation is not a stipulation for marriage. Your post is false and hateful and misinformation.

      Why is it so hard to support your position honestly? Why do you have to resort to lies?

  22. Billy Mays says:

    Most westerners shudder at the prospect of sharia law, but the same principles behind sharia support hatemongers like anderson and his like in their desire to impose their religious dogma on others. They are equally vile and hateful, and for the same reasons.

    • HW says:

      Your position is laughable as there is absolutely nothing hateful in what he’s said. I find it incredibly frustrating when SSM supporters like yourself attempt to shut down ANY opposition by painting everyone who disagrees as a bigot or hateful person. This is not only unhelpful to both sides but incredibly childish and immature.

      • Mike Hind says:

        You know what’s even more frustrating?
        Knowing that my fellow citizens are being denied equal rights and privileges for absolutely no valid reasons.

        Having your hate pointed out to you must be pretty awful, but I don’t think it compares.

  23. Ironic says:

    The irony of the situation is that the same Black Bermudians who are against this forget to realize that this same treatment was used on them 50 years ago with similar arguments. Now as we have slipped past segregation we figure its a good time to punish those were in our situation years ago. its like Stockholm Syndrome but with oppression of other minorities (gay, Muslim, Filipino). Makes me sad

  24. HW says:

    So Mr. Butterfield, why didn’t you debate Dr. Anderson last night? I suspect it’s because he is far more able and equipped to support his positions and you may have come to that realization last night so chose not to speak up. Your criticisms of him are easily dismissed as either completely unsupportable or simply based on your fears.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Not even remotely close to true!

      The Piers Morgan video shows very clearly that this guys uses specious, false arguments to make his point and refuses to even think about debating or discussing.
      Much like you.

  25. Dr. Anderson spoke up for traditional marriage . He did Bermuda proud . The government needs to stand on the side of right and stand up for traditional marriage. In the end, same sex supporters want no law on marriage at all. The Chief Justice was wrong in his decision and conclusions. A new case will come before him, and the marriage law will be declared discriminatory.

    • Mike Hind says:

      “the end, same sex supporters want no law on marriage at all.”

      This is untrue.

      Why can’t you use honesty and truth to support your position?

  26. Steve Weatherbe says:

    This column is soo badly argued I thought at firstit was a parody. All its author had to do to prove Anderson was a bigot or a religious fanatic or whatever was quote him saying something bigoted. But he doesn’t do that. Hmmm. Why not?
    In fact, he quotes Anderson saying sympathetic things about Gays and claims that proves he’s bigoted. Not where I come from.
    Oh, yeah, here’s more proof. He’s “associated” with evangelical Republicans so that proves he’s a religious fanatic.
    Sorry folks, that’s not actually evidence either–of anything.
    Why not just say he’s opposed to gay marriage so he shouldnt be allowed to speak at the hotel. On the other hand, if a different Bermuda hotel doesn’t want to host a gay marriage, shut them down, right? Because there’s no principle here. Just people this columnist disagrees with should be banned.
    Oh Anderson’s science. This columnist doesn’t say, go read those studies and decide for yourself, he directs you a site that debunks them. Has he read those studies comparing children of heteros and gays? Any guesses?

Latest Bernews Current Affairs Podcasts