Live Video Replay: Same Sex Marriage Forum

December 2, 2015

[Updated] The “Concerned Citizens of Bermuda” are holding a public forum this evening [Dec 2] at the New Testament Church of God, Heritage Worship Center on Dundonald Street, with overseas speaker Dr Ryan Anderson delivering a presentation to the attendees.


In announcing the forums, the group said it was part “of their ongoing initiative to ensure that marriage in Bermuda remains defined and upheld as a special union between a man and a woman.”

Update: The event has ended & the 1 hour 45 min replay is below

Update: Three more photos from the forum are below

Preserve Marriage Town Hall Bermuda, December 2 2015-3

Preserve Marriage Town Hall Bermuda, December 2 2015-2

Preserve Marriage Town Hall Bermuda, December 2 2015-1

Read More About

Category: All, News, Videos

Comments (80)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Susan says:

    Not many people!

    • Straight Up says:

      that speaks volumes, and how many supposed petition signees??

      • Tony Brannon says:

        That petition of Concerned Citizens has no credibility simply because it allowed multiple signings from any one IP address….. That does NOT happen with Bona Fide Petition websites…..
        This number is “pie in the sky”.

        • Sabrina says:

          Actually members of the same household who share a computer are entitled to sign the petition. Also, if they are Bermudian, their names can be cross referenced with voter registration lists. Lastly, there are many seniors out there who do not own a computer but want to sign the petition – in that event – it is perfectly reasonable that a family member or friends computer would be used.

          • hmmm says:

            Surely those said people in same household have their own e-mail accounts.

            The excuse for not having controls because some people don’t have a computer is pathetic. There will be people who don’t have a computer that can’t ever sign the pro Human Rights petition. These people are not moot either.

            • Sabrina says:

              Surely not.

              Not every household has a separate email account.

              And nothing stops anyone from asking a friend or relative to use their computer to sign ANY petition.

              • hmmm says:

                But those without a computer can’t sign the pro human rights petition because they need an e-mail.

                Ultimately the anti-human rights and equality petition (because that is what it is) is FLAWED.

                Whoever did it needs to outline exactly how they went about verifying the signatures.

                Someone could have just got a phonebook out and added names. Why are you defending a FLAWED petition? Can you not see you are bearing false witness to something !!!!

                • Sabrina says:

                  Well then – maybe there needs to be a Referendum and every Bermudian that wants to vote on this issue can.

                  • hmmm says:

                    No, there need to be equal human rights.

                    You don’t understand at all do you.

                    • PWH says:

                      according to the European Commission of Human Rights….. marriage for anyone is not a human right

    • Now I see says:

      Looks like a certain segment of the island that the Old Bats Association is scared to mess with when it comes to votes.

      • Look says:

        It was a lot of people last night and tonight. The video didn’t capture the entire church.

  2. Maxine Weill says:

    Please fact check everything this man puts forth as fact and read this article.

  3. As I watch this I feel that the information is very informative, but it is no different then the information that was put forth during the stubb’s bill debate.

    My greatest disappointment is the lack of support from the Christian community, and as I said a few weeks ago on talk radio, The greatest problem in Bermuda is not the gay agenda.

    I believe the break down in our community has to be put a the feet of the church, and fortunate or unfortunate, the church is the laughing stock here, because of our division and being so divided, we don’t even put aside our differences to support such a event.

    I know that this will rub many so call believers the wrong way and the defensive so called believer will come out swinging, but I don’t back down from none of you, Please understand until our church leaders come together and really put aside their difference, we will never see the strength of what we need within our community until we come together as a body.

    • rudy says:


      • Joshua says:

        Amen to that Pastor. Too often we as God’s People wait until the horse is out of the stable. As in the Stubbs’ Bill; we remained the silent,praying majority.Christ has no hands,feet,or voice but ours here on earth.

        • Biblebabble says:

          Um…so if you silently prayed and the bill passed, does that mean that the sky fairy 1) ignored your prayers, 2) approved of the bill or 3) doesn’t exist?

    • Mike Hind says:

      You also don’t answer simple questions or back up your claims…

    • Not me says:

      You literally wrote a four paragraph comment that said absolutely nothing.

    • No says:

      You literally wrote four paragraphs that said absolutely nothing.

  4. Triangle Drifter says:

    For a group that claims 7000 signatures on a survey the 2 night meeting turnout is very poor.

  5. SANDGROWNAN says:

    not exactly a packed house is it?

    • rudy says:

      Maybe there is a hot game of BINGO at another venue.

      HA HA!

    • umok says:

      Then maybe the OBA won’t be scared to push through the gay agenda.

  6. Dangel says:

    To the bloggers thus far.. do you not know that many of the Churches have Prayer and Bible study on a Wednesday night. The believers and persons who signed the petition does not have to show up to prove anything. Fairmont Hamilton’s stance made it so that more people would not attend as there are some folk who live on this island and would proclaim about how long they have resided here and contributed to the community and deserve to be given status but have never walked on that stretch of road called Dundonald Street.

    The Christian community is guided by one principle and that is that God’s word is the law concerning preserving marriage.

    I would think that prayer is going on now, has been and will continue until this island is a Righteous island. When the social issues are truly addressed only then will this island enjoy the prosperity and peace it once did.

    • Agreed says:


    • No says:

      Separate church and government. This mentality is horrendous.

    • hmmm says:

      God’s word is not the law, it’s your perception of the law. Try stoning people in public, taking slaves, administering advertised public beatings (all biblical) and you’ll soon find yourself on the WRONG side of the law.

      Perhaps Praying and asking for things is not the answer…Giving thanks to God sounds more appropriate, asking God to do things for you is selfish. Perhaps instead spend 50% of your asking and praying time actually helping people who need physical help (not religious guidance)would help people and Bermuda. God would have more freetime to do God’s work and the people of Bermuda would be better off.

      I just checked with God, and the response to this was very positive !

    • Anbu says:

      And why should the christian community get to decide the fate of tgese peoples lives? Newsflash mate. “Your” god is not “my” god. So why in the hell should we have to be forced to follow “your” gods rules? Keep thumpin that ancient outdated book. The world is moving forward and religion is taking a back seat. Bermuda will have to wait a hell of alot longer than the rest of tge world because thats what we do best, drag our feet. Dont worry, this will happen for them. Sorry they have to wait so long because the majority are so selfish.

  7. Paradise reclaimed says:

    Let us remember the only sensible words the Reverend Tweed ever projected to my knowledge. They were the first words that made me recognize him, I had high hopes after hearing his words. And I paraphrase, to my best recollection, “The criteria for being protected under the human rights act should be whether the person is human.” It boggles the mind the same man stand for things like the Peoples Campaign.

    Credit where due, his read on human rights distilled the issues as clearly as I could imagine. Where is the good reverend standing with regard to this distinguished visiting speaker’s rhetoric?

  8. Kevin says:

    so you believe that when things were good we didn’t have a population that wanted sexual freedom …go back in the bottle you came from and wait for your next gene
    and take all of those who believe like you do to your promised land …wherever that may be.

  9. Reality Check says:

    I’m sure the numbers in attendance do not accurately reflect the numbers that oppose ssm , but the opposite is equally true . The numbers publicly supporting it do not accurately reflect the multiple thousands who do not have a problem recognizing discrimination when they see it . For those who are unable to get past the mental picture of two men , in church , both in dresses , grow up ! The issue is about the same rights of property ownership , inheritance , parental rights etc etc that the rest of us already enjoy .

    • PWH says:

      The same “rights” as you call it can all be obtained withour re-definging marriage

      • hmmm says:

        wedding …not marriage….do not mix up the two.

      • Mike Hind says:


      • Mike Hind says:

        Why shouldn’t we redefine marriage (and, from what I can see, we’d only be redefining one line in a matrimony act, not the marriage act)?

        We’ve done it before and it worked out just fine.

        • PWH says:

          descride works fine…. you have no historical evidence for your comment… it works fine because it is what the LGBT community wants

          • Mike Hind says:

            Pssst… Are you forgetting miscegenation?

          • Mike Hind says:

            Now, would you care to explain why we shouldn’t redefine?

  10. Citmin says:

    This presentation is certainly making me think about traditional marriage. I have never heard of Dr. Anderson before this visit but I think his points are pivotal! I have never heard someone articulate like him in such a respectful manner. This demonstrated to me that the HP had it wrong. There is NO hate speech in his presentation at all. Left me thinking!

    • hmmm says:

      Is he married or does he live with anyone?

    • impressive. says:

      Indeed!! That word “hate” is thrown around so easily in attempts to win moral or ethical battles by many, but in my opinion, the adjective is over the top most of the time.. Some persons simply can’t accept that people have different views in certain issues.

      • A few queries says:

        Agree completely.

        No different then when people labels others as racists for not holding the same view or political ideology as others.

        These claims are now becoming redundant and simply a deflection.

        • Mike Hind says:


          its about the denial of rights, not the “not holding the same view or political ideology”.

          To claim otherwise is a misrepresentation of what’s going on.

          • PWH says:

            marriage is not a human right

            • Mike Hind says:

              Didn’t say it was. Please address the things I say and not what you wish I had.
              Please try to be honest.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Again, he’s talking about denying equal rights and privileges to citizens of our country, for no valid reason whatsoever.

      That’s hate speech.

  11. feel the love says:

    This guy spouts fairy tales and lies. Is he related to Chris InFamous?

  12. Common Sense says:

    I wonder if Dangel or anyone else for that matter can explain just who it is who is NOT wanting to preserve marriage? Surely, the exact opposite is the case. More and more young heterosexual couples are choosing NOT to be married, while same sex couples want to commit to each other in marriage.

    I note that American speaker Ryan Anderson outlined a definition of marriage as “inherently the domain of procreation and child-rearing”, but that is manifestly untrue in an increasing number of marriages. As just one simple example, I know of a couple who were recently married who certainly did not marry for “procreation and child rearing” How do I know this? Because both had lost their respective spouses, and both decided to marry again even though they are in the 80′s and have no possibility of procreating, and no desire to rear children.

    I also know of a loving heterosexual couple who married, and remained happily married even though they knew before tying the knot that they could never have children.

    I have no objection to Ryan Anderson making speeches against same sex marriage, but we should all bear in mind that he is a citizen of a country where same sex marriage is the law of the land.

    If we allow same sex couples to marry in Bermuda it will not in any way adversely effect my own marriage, nor in reality, anyone else marriage. The sky will not fall down and we will move forward.

  13. Takbir Karriem Sharrieff says:

    It is best that same sex marriages go the same way that lying ,and cheating,and stealing have gone,in the closet ,under the covers,into the money changers chambers and wherever most aberrent or abhorent conduct is forced to go.Jesus the Christ{crusher}is said to have whipped them out of the church.{church meaning the public domain or public gathering place ,or community,of people who want to do right.It is no different today.The next step is very clear to deal with these misfits..get ye behind me satan.

  14. Oh stop it says:

    I want to hold a forum to promote all the laws of the Old Testament. So I hope all will join me in wanting to allow men to have more than one wife, slavery, the rape of women provided you marry them and pay their father, stoning women for adultery. Let’s promote all these laws because you can’t cherry pick which to follow. So if you want to say being gay is against The bible then well let’s follow the bible all the way to the letter of it all!

    • Mikasa.a says:


    • PWH says:

      you know it is called the “old” testament because Jesus brought in the new, you will have to read the book sometime so you see the flow of Biblical history. Your comment suggests you have may not read the whole book to get the full story

  15. Tony Brannon says:

    Whatever Dr. Anderson thinks, The Supreme Court has ruled in the USA legalizing same sex marriage. Furthermore, the 1st black president of the USA Barack Obama supports same sex marriage 100%.

    Same Sex Couples deserve the same rights as everyone else with regards to marriage in Bermuda.

    Someone with a big checkbook, has funded bringing in this man to Bermuda to speak against Human Rights.

    I cannot support anything at all that Dr. Anderson speaks of in this regard.

    • PWH says:

      the definition of marriage as it stands now and is now and has been for centuries is between a man and a woman… so gay couples do have equal rights with everyone else by definition and reasonable conclusion

      Gays want to re-define marriage

  16. Zevon says:

    The biggest threat to marriage in Bermuda is the people who have chldren at a young age prior to marriage.
    That creates far greater social problems. Why doesn’t the church ever say anything about that?

    • Mike Hind says:

      Well, the biggest threat to marriage is this group of people that want to stop other people from getting married, no?


    • PWH says:

      The church does plenty to address this issue of which you may be unaware because you may not be part of those faith comnunities

  17. Mikasa.a says:

    What ever happened to the church and goverment should be separate thing? I feel like that was a thing.

    • PWH says:

      the church has not defined marriage the law has because for centuries accross cultures, religions and philosophies that is the recognized definition

      church and government as a seperate thing that was mentioned in the USA was set to keep the government from dictating which religion was a State religion, this is where religious freedon and freedom of conscious comes from

  18. PWH says:

    the sky will not fall down, but the fabric of society will change because yet again the rights of children are being ignored for the desires of adults

    • Mike Hind says:

      What rights of children will be changed by Marriage Equality?

  19. PWH says:

    the right to be raised by their mother and father

    • Mike Hind says:

      Nope. Not actually a right.
      And, if it was, how could marriage equality possibly change that?

      Would you care to explain that, or will this be another hit and run?

      • HW says:

        I don’t want to put words in your mouth so will simply ask the question: Generally speaking, do you think the ideal scenario is for a child to be raised by their biological mother and father or does it not matter?

        • Mike Hind says:

          So, no? You aren’t going to answer how marriage equality will change this?

          Got it.

          Here’s the thing…

          Gay folks getting married will have no effect on straight marriages.
          It will have no effect on straight families with a mommy and a daddy.
          It will have no effect on single parent families.

          You have shown absolutely no evidence that marriage equality will have ANY sort of effect on children being raised by two parents of opposite genders, not that this is a stipulation of marriage in any way.

          Here’s another thing…
          Any children of same sex parents will be joining the family because of a very deep desire to have kids, either through surrogates or adoption. This is WAY more important than the genders of the parents.

          So… What is your point, again?

          • HW says:

            Redefining marriage denies as a matter of policy the ideal that a child needs their mother and father. It teaches that fathers are replaceable. In a society where fatherless ness and the breakdown of the family unit is our biggest problem, legislating for further fractured family units goes against all common sense.

            True, not every marriage results in kids but the structure of 1 male and 1 female still holds up the ideal for all. We should do more to uphold a culture in which children are most likely to be raised by the man and woman responsible for bringing them into the world, not redefine marriage to suit the desires of adults.

            • Mike Hind says:

              None of this is true, nor is it relevant, nor does it address anything I’ve said.

              It is simply a repetition of already debunked false rhetoric, designed to deny rights to citizens of Bermuda.

              You are incorrect at best, in this.

              Procreation is not a stipulation for marriage, therefore, this argument is invalid.

              And desperate,

              Putting your fingers in your ears and saying “la la la” isn’t going to make these lies true.

              • HW says:

                I never said procreation is a stipulation for marriage so don’t put words in my mouth, as I clearly mentioned that not every marriage will have kids.

                Your stance is simply to bully people into agreeing with your position or you label and portray them as being unable to participate in discussion. I’m not sticking my fingers in my ears and acting childish, that would be you taking that approach. Just because you attempt to shut down the discussion by immediately labeling people or their positions as wrong doesn’t make it so.

                It is very clear and obvious that the union between a man and woman is unique as it celebrates the only union which is even capable of leading to procreation. Again, not every marriage will lead to this due to various circumstances whether it’s age, infertility or other medical issues, or personal choice. But the union between a man and a woman still is unique and complimentary like no other. To deny this would be to ignore basic biology.

                Finally it is not a denial of human rights to acknowledge and promote the uniqueness of this union. Any and everybody is able to be married. The issue is that gay people don’t want a marriage- they want to redefine marriage.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Nothing in here is true.

                  I’m not bullying anyone. I’m simply asking for a valid reason to deny equal rights and privileges to a group of my fellow citizens.
                  I’m not the one shutting down discussions, I’m the one trying to HAVE a discussion about valid reasons to stop willing, consenting adults from getting married.

                  It’s not my fault that you don’t have one.

                  I’m trying to get to the bottom of why people are so against it, to the point where they think they have the right to have a say in someone else’s relationship.

                  It’s interesting that you SAY that you agree that procreation isn’t a stipulation, and then use the fact that gay people can’t procreate as your argument against letting them marry.
                  I can’t figure out the logic on that.

                  As for redefining marriage… I’ve asked before…

                  Why shouldn’t we? Society has done it before, many times.
                  Why not now?

Sign Up For Our Free Email Newsletters