Same Sex Partner Rights Effective In February

December 10, 2015

[Updated] The decision in the Bermuda Bred case will take effect on 29 February 2016, and the Chief Justice also adjusted the declaration by extending residential and employment rights to same-sex partners in a “permanent” relationship with a Bermudian, as opposed to a “stable” relationship.

The Bermuda Bred decision was handed down on November 27th, and saw the Supreme Court rule that non-Bermudian same-sex partners of Bermudians, who are in committed relationships, are entitled to live and work in Bermuda.

The ruling said, “Because same sex marriage was neither possible nor recognised under existing Bermudian law, the relevant statutory provisions discriminated against Bermudians in stable same-sex relationships in an indirect way.”

Same-Sex-Marriage-2 TC

Another hearing was held this week, and following it Home Affairs Minister Michael Fahy said, “On Monday, the Chief Justice accepted that a short suspension was warranted in the Bermuda Bred case. The decision will take effect on 29 February 2016.

“This time will allow Government an opportunity to consider what administrative changes the Department of Immigration needs to make in order to comply with the decision.It will also give Government some time to make progress towards a broader legislative response to the issues raised in this case.

“The Chief Justice also limited the scope of his declaration by extending spousal residential and employment rights to same-sex partners in a “permanent” relationship with a Bermudian, as opposed to a “stable” relationship referenced in his ruling of 27 November 2015.

“Requiring there to be a “permanent” same-sex relationship for the extension of certain spousal rights as opposed to a “stable” one narrows the effects of the judgment from what was originally understood to be the case.”

Speaking about the marriage notice filed by a gay couple, Minister Fahy added, “As respect to the application made to the Registrar General this remains under review but the public should recall the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974 makes it clear that a marriage other than between a man and a woman is void.”

Update Dec 11, 8.35am: The Bermuda Bred Company has released a statement following the December 7 ruling, saying “we maintain the view that the judgment is specific and limited in its effect, and that it does not deal with the recognition of marriage equality in Bermuda.”

A spokesperson said, “The Bermuda Bred Company acknowledges and welcomes the Chief Justice’s decision following the hearing on 7 December 2015, to minimize the delay in giving effect to his recent landmark judgment. Having originally been asked to suspend his decision for 12 months, we are satisfied that 12 weeks is a more appropriate period for the Department of Immigration to undertake any internal reviews and to implement any consequential changes to its processes which may now be necessary.

“We maintain the view that the judgment is specific and limited in its effect, and that it does not deal with the recognition of marriage equality in Bermuda.

“We also acknowledge the clarification made by the Chief Justice on the recognition of residential and employment rights for same-sex partners in ‘permanent’ relationships. The stability of the relationships of our members has never been in question, which of itself warrants the Department of Immigration being required to recognize the right to family life of Bermudians in mixed nationality same-sex relationships.

“The Department of Immigration has previously received applications from two members of the Bermuda Bred Company, one 2 years ago and the other 1 year ago, each seeking to have a non-Bermudian partner be given the same legal recognition as a spouse of a Bermudian. Neither application has ever been acknowledged.

“The very real impact this has had on these families to live and work in Bermuda as well as the resulting emotional and financial burden which has resulted have been recognised by the Chief Justice.

“The Bermuda Bred Company looks forward to the Department of Immigration completing its internal review and implementing a policy that does not discriminate against Bermudians in same-sex relationships with non-Bermudians.”

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (143)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Bermudian Momma says:

    Soo – will we be addressing opposite sex in a “permanent” (not married) relationship with a Bermudian ability to reside and work in Bermuda. As there are many people who do not believe in the institution of marriage but are in long-term “permanent” relationships. Indirectly, the relevant statutory provisions discriminated against Bermudians in stable opposite sex relationships also.

    Question: what is the definition of “permanent” in this regard?

    • meh. says:

      I agree with your concerns.

      I’m all for marriage equality. However this ruling worries me greatly. It absolutely undermines the legislative system, and while I hate when people use ‘slippery slope’ arguments, the precedent established by this ruling could have far reaching ramifications. Purely for example, take another controversial topic – legalized marijuana. Using the same logic as the above, since Bermuda does not allow use of marijuana it is discriminating against those who use it for religious purposes. Freedom to practice one’s religions is in the charter of human rights. Therefore the supreme court should rule that religious use of weed needs to be allowed.

      Again I have not saying weed or same sex marriage should not be allowed, I’m fine with both. What I am saying is that the democratic process is being circumvented.

      • just the tip says:

        How is this undermining the legislative system when it is a ruling from a judge as it pertains to how the law reads? And yes there are far reaching effects, that isn’t a bad thing since it means we are moving towards a more inclusive society.

        As for the weed thing which you threw in there just to confuse the issue a touch, the answer is simple. Let those whose relegion call for weed then apply to the courts just like Bermuda Bred group and present their case, just like The Church of Marijuana in Indiana did.

      • Come Correct says:

        Well I know what my argument is if I get caught with a doobey.

    • GAMEOVER says:

      No! Because you have the option to get married, gays don’t! If opposite sex couples are in love they should marry! LOL!

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      Not sure if Bermuda has a legislative equivilant, but most other juristictions have what is more often referred to as ‘common law’. These are recognized through official government certification/licenses/paperwork that often requires couples to prove that they have been living exclusively together for more than 2 years (time duration varies with juristiction, but most seem to have a 2 year min). Once obtained, these certification/licenses/paperwork then extends the same legal rights, or similar, as married couples are granted, provided they continue to live together or until they officially dissolve the certification/licenses/paperwork. So, by extension, any couple that can show that they have these certification/licenses/paperwork abroad, will then gain the same spousal rights as to reside and work as Bermudian couples, with the exception that without the marriage license, and by extension a Spouse of Bermudian Letter, the non-Bermudian spouse would require a work permit. Not so much of an issue for same sex because they can at least marry and that would entitle to a SOB letter, but the same sex will not be able to have any marriage licenses acknowledged (at least until the matrimonial legislation is quashed for violating the human rights act

  2. San George says:

    This judge is out of order. It is not his job to make law. The courts must separate their personal preferences from what is good for society. The judiciary and the Governor must stand-up to this man. This is very dangerous stuff.

    • blankman says:

      How is the judge making law? All he’s doing is applying the law as written.

      • Daylilly says:

        The judge is circumventing the intent of the marriage act of Bermuda, which says that marriage is between 1 male and 1 female, as it has been since forever. The judge is circumventing what 173 countries and billions of people know to be true about marriage.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Wrong again.
          The Marriage Act says nothing of the sort. The Matrimonial Clauses Act is what you’real thinking of.

          And why shouldn’t we change that? Any reason at all?

    • hmmm says:

      What are you scared of?

      • N says:

        Our kids’ futures!! And safety!

        • hmmm says:

          6000 expats left during and as part of the fall out of the PLP’s last term in office.

          Why do you think there are less jobs for Bermudians like us?

          That is up to half a billion dollars that stopped flowing around our economy, into shops into services into jobs.

          If you are worried about your kids future and safety, then you’ll soon realize that we need more people on the island.

          • Daylilly says:

            Bermuda had learned to survive having much more than it needed. Perhaps we created an economy fueled by greed rather than meeting necessities.

            There is no guarantee of increased long term benefit to Bermuda by adopting SSM.

            We needn’t prostitute our beliefs for money. How would that be helpful.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Sure there is!
              The benefit of families being together, sharing in equal rights and privileges.

              Giving people equality is always a benefit.

          • Pete says:

            You can add 10K Bermudians to the 16K, there seems to be a playing down to that side of the situation.
            About your kids, tell them the facts, and truth.
            They will make decisions when they become Adults.

        • Anbu says:

          What does this have to do with kids safety?! Are u kidding me. Halff u people on about this child safety crap are hypocrites. Are all gay people pedophiles or something? Harp on the gays about how they will corrupt our kids and then 90% of you go home and let your kid play Grand Theft Auto. Smh. Whos corrupting who?

          • Mike Hind says:

            It’s the new false argument they’re trying.

            “Kids deserve a mother and father and gay folks can’t offer that, so they shouldn’t be allowed to get married.”

            This follows the bizarre “Gay folks can’t have kids, so it’s not fair to their kids, which is why they shouldn’t be allowed to get married.”

            It’s a very weird argument, but they’re trying to make it a thing.

            • blankman says:

              Let us also remember that researchers at the University of Melbourne recently published the results of their study of the impact of same-sex parents on kids. Turns out that kids with same-sex parents actually fared better than those with hetero parents. The only negative the study found was that these kids were more likely to be bullied and discriminated against because of who their parents were. And that has nothing to do with the parents and everything to do with the homophobes out there.

              • Daylilly says:

                Fact finding is a very profitable business and “scientific facts” and studies can be made to support any argument….. It all depends on whose “finding the facts”

                • Mike Hind says:

                  No. It doesn’t.
                  This is yet another complete lie from you.

                  Facts are facts. Verifiable data.

                  You have none, so you’re trying to denounce the very idea of “facts”

                  That’s low, even for you.

                  Don’t let your desperation to discriminate turn you from your core values.
                  Don’t forget the whole “false witness” thing!

            • Daylilly says:

              It’s not weird that no human is born without 1 male and 1 female to produce them. Therefore having a mother and a father is truly the most basic human right because ALL HUMANS have both.

              Who are we to legislate removing that child’s right.

              • Mike Hind says:

                This has been shown, over and over, to be a ridiculous argument.

                Procreation is not a stipulation for marriage.

                No one’s human rights will be taken away by same sex marriage.

                You are wrong. Again.

                Please stop spreading lies.

      • Just saying says:

        Bermuda’s population is growing and people are already fighting for jobs. I think it needs to be looked at in that light.

    • Equal Bermuda says:

      Actually San George, part of judicial duty is to make law. While the primary duty of the courts is to interpret the laws created by the legislature, the interpretation of the law by the courts in certain circumstances leads to setting of precedents. These precedents are referred to as case law. Case law made by the higher courts is in turn binding on the lower courts and therefore requires the lower courts to follow the rulings rendered by the higher court unless that decision is struck down on appeal, or there are discernible differences in the 2 cases which require a different ruling.

      I agree that judges should leave their personal feelings out of their decisions. However, in this instance, unless the governing statute or any other statute specifically states otherwise, the Supreme Court was well within its sphere of authority to render such a decision. Whether or not the decision should have been made is another issue entirely.

    • Extinction like a dinosaur = Bda says:

      More islanders out of employment. Before Bermudians had to only compete against Xpats. Now Bermudians and Xpats will have to compete against gay couples.

      Next same same-sex partners will be able to run as Politians and wear pink shorts to the House of Assembly.

      • aceboy Number 2 says:

        “Next same same-sex partners will be able to run as Politians and wear pink shorts to the House of Assembly.”

        …and before you know it, they’ll be allowing black people to sit at the front of the bus….slippery slope.

      • serengeti says:

        Do you really think that no gay person has ever run as a politician in Bermuda?

      • Sandman says:

        oh my – you mean we might end up with some *gay* politicians. Pass the smelling salts I think I’m going to faint.

      • No says:

        Or be your descendants.

      • Mike Hind says:

        You do realize that “gay couples” are not mutually exclusive from “Bermudians” and “Xpats”, right?

        You get that this is about Bermudians and “Xpats”, right?

    • N says:

      VERY DANGEROUS; I could’ve sworn the bible was involved in the judicial system and if it is any legality of this same sex want is un-GodlY!

      • aceboy says:

        “VERY DANGEROUS; I could’ve sworn the bible was involved in the judicial system and if it is any legality of this same sex want is un-GodlY!”

        You were mistaken.

        • hmmm says:

          We are not God, why would our laws try to treat us as such.

          Why would folks want to act like God. God created the earth apparently, the PLP created a mess. It’s hardly on par.

        • The Dark Knight Returns says:

          Actually the bible is involved in the courts. Whenever one has to give evidence they are given the option to swear on the bible or take an affirmation. With this ruling I see no need to swear on the bible ever again.

          • bdaboy says:

            Do you know what “option” means?

          • Mike Hind says:

            The key word is “option”.

            No one HAS to swear on a bible.

            Therefore, it may be involved, but is not a requirement.

            Thus, the argument is invalid.

        • Daylilly says:

          Not really mistaken. Most laws in every country including Bermuda were based off of the most widely adopted religious views.

          • Mike Hind says:


            Christianity and the bible are not stipulations. No one is forced to follow the bible.

            Therefore, you are wrong.


    • nomoremoneybermuda says:

      sorry, but that is exactly how legislation gets tested in law. everywhere there is a democratic process.

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      Actually, he is upholding the law as it is written. The Human Rights act has primacy over all legislation, and the judge aged that the legislation that would have otherwise prevented the rights of same sex Bermudian/non-Bermudian couples from being recognized while the rights of heterosexual Bermudian/non-Bermudian couples are recognized was discriminatory under the Human Rights Act and thus null and void. What has to be shown is that they hold either a marriage or common law certificate to show they are in a committed relationship, in order to be eligible.

    • The Dark Knight Returns says:

      San George, I agree soul heartedly.

  3. .. says:

    WOW is all I can say

  4. Appalled Man says:

    This is appalling.

    • Silence Do Good says:

      What is appalling is same sex cannot be discriminated against and afforded the same rights as a spouse of a Bermudian but what about my multiple expat husbands who are the opposite sex. Polygamy now need to be recognized also as it is the opposite sex in a stable relationships were we cannot legally get married. What is good for thee goose is good for the gander. Where are my rights and protections for my family, husbands and our children?

      • aceboy Number 2 says:

        “Where are my rights and protections for my family, husbands and our children?”

        You need to get off your lazy a** and fight for them, don’t expect everything to be handed to you on a silver platter.

        • Regina says:

          Wait…I’m still stuck on the part about her “multiple husbands” Whaaat?

      • Mike Hind says:

        When have you started a movement to have this happen?
        Have you approached the government to change the law?

        You’ve brought this up on Bernews a few times…
        is that your only activism on this topic?
        What else are you doing to make this happen?

      • No laughing matter says:

        Why stop there?

        What about adult siblings who fall in love? What if their religious beliefs allow for incest among adults siblings? It should not matter “who they love”, right?…

        Why should bestiality remain illegal? For some of the evolution lovers out there who believe that mankind are relatives of monkeys…It should not matter who or “what” they love, right?….

        Come on folks…let’s NOT open Pandora’s box by changing the definition of marriage! Government really needs to draw the line quick and put their stern foot down before this craziness gets out of hand.

        • Mike Hind says:


          Here we go again.

          Animals cannot give consent.
          Children cannot give consent.

          Siblings already have familial rights.

          Any other simple questions you need answered?


          • No laughing matter says:

            Where in my reply did I mention anything about children? I am talking about ADULT siblings (ADULT brother/sister, brother/brother, sister/sister) in a sexual relationship.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Did you miss the possible damage to the child of incest? That is who cannot consent. This is why it’s taboo.

              What possible reason would a pair of siblings need to get married?

              I know you’re desperate to denounce gay folks, but at least TRY to keep up.

              We’ve been through all this repeatedly and your arguments have been shown to be baseless and wrong many, many times.

              Do you have an actual, valid, honest reason to oppose same sex marriage?
              One that doesn’t involve someone’s religion or false arguments involving procreation being a stipulation for marriage or bestiality or incest or paedophilia or any of the usual nonsense people pull out of their… hats as excuses to deny fellow citizens equal rights and privileges, preferably.

            • Mike Hind says:

              Oh, and, in case you missed it, brother/brother and sister/sister isn’t allowed.
              That’s what you’re fighting against with your argument, remember?

          • Daylilly says:

            What about the human children who give no consent to legally removing their right to have a mom AND a dad. Mothers and fathers are relevant as are boys and hurls

            • Mike Hind says:

              Here we go again.

              This is a nonsense argument.

              No one has a right to have a mom and a dad.

              Procreation isn’t a stipulation for marriage.

              Same sex marriage will not take away anyone’s rights.

              This has been pointed out to you many times and yet you continue to spread this lie.

              Come on.

        • Mike Hind says:

          And… “Evolution lovers”?

          Seriously? In this day and age, you can, with a straight face, act like someone believing in science is a bad thing?


        • Silence Do Good says:

          This is basically what I am saying. If you are going to open Pandora’s box on the matter then all legal age consenting adults can choose whatever civil union they wish and be offered the same rights and protection.

          Moral and ethics can go right out the window with the baby and the bath water. Other religions and culture accept multiple marriages long before they would accept same sex. If we are going to allow certain cultural norms or accept certain practices shouldn’t we start with a more widely accept practice that is already part of our planets cultural norms?

          • Mike Hind says:

            Again, are you pushing for this anywhere but here on Bernews?

            “…shouldn’t we start with a more widely accepted practice…”?

            Um. No. We should start with the group that is actually asking for equal rights.
            The group that has actually come together and done something.

            When you do that, when you start a movement and actually start doing something, you might be surprised at the support you’d get.

        • What?? says:

          The issue is discrimination.

          Nobody is allowed to marry their sibling. Nobody is allowed to marry an animal. There is NO discrimination. The same law applies to all. Homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.

          Heterosexual couples can marry. Homosexual couples can not. There IS discrimination. The Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

          The “slippery slope” arguement is pure fantasy.

  5. hmmm says:

    Need to pass the laws to allow and recognize same sex marriage or we could end up with folks pretending to be gay and in “permanent” relationships to abuse the system to work here.

    Then we would be back to square one in terms of heterosexual non married folks saying we are not married but we are in a permanent relationship.

    This isn’t complicated at all, so let us not make it complicated.

    Just fix the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974. One brushstroke. Done

    • Reality Check says:

      You are absolutely right . That is the only sensible way to manage this situation .

    • What?? says:

      I agree that would be best way to go and that will most likely happen either by legislative change or court order. However, I don’t believe there is any real chance of people pretending to be gay and in a permanent relationship being a major problem. There is a reason the judge changed the wording from “stable relationship” to “permanent relationship”. Using the latter ruling the Department of Immigration can determine the permanency of the relationship by asking to see a marriage license (obviously a foreign one at the moment). The same procedure they now use for bi-national heterosexual couples. So “pretending” will be no more of an issue now then it has been.

  6. hmmmmm says:

    What country in the World gives residential and employment rights to same-sex partners? This island is limited on jobs and space. Now more jobs will be lost to Bermudians and their children. I know people that have already declared that they will say this is their partner just to bring them into Bermuda to work. This will be abused by many and that is a fact.

    • hmmmmm says:

      Bill says this is his lover and brings Mike into Bermuda. All the while Mikes coming in for Julie and vice versa.
      Another ex…Bill brings Mike in but in reality …Mike is coming to Bermuda, just to make some extra cash working for Bill. No work permit required.

      • just the tip says:

        the big flaw with this thought is that Bill and Mike need to prove that they have a long standing and committed relationship in order for this rulling to apply to them.

        • JAWS says:

          Are you serious all they have to do is give a 2 minute kiss. I know straight couples that don’t even practice that anymore.

          • Build a Better Bermuda says:

            “Are you serious all they have to do is give a 2 minute kiss”

            you most be getting board playing so far out in the outfield. Been a long time since you seen reality.

          • just the tip says:

            No they don’t unless you can show were in the ruling that judge said that if not you just warping things to suit you

        • Daylilly says:

          People already lie to seek employment in this country. This ruling just provides another loophole. Who will pay to remove the x-pat when the permanent ling term relationship is over.

          • Mike Hind says:

            More nonsense.
            You’re so desperate to discriminate, you’re willing to say anything, no matter how desperate.

      • Regina says:

        Yea because soooo many people pretend to be in a long-term gay relationship for monetary gain! Hmmmmmm – maybe you should stop watching the idiot box in your livingroom.

        • JAWS says:

          Regina let me explain something to you that person is correct. I know a few taxi drivers that said if this ruling goes to the finale stages. The 3rd World girlfriend who already works in Bermuda on contract, well their bringing the brother of the girlfriend in to drive their taxi at a $70 fee per day. At the end of the day they can say the brother is their lover, but in reality they are dating the sister. Think outside the BOX.

          • Mike Hind says:

            None of this is real.
            Not even a little bit.

          • just the tip says:

            Again this is all bull as it would be require to have proof that they are in a relationship, in a committed LONG TERM relationship.

      • Build a Better Bermuda says:

        Do Bill and Mike have a common law certificate to qualify. Most juristiction that have common law legislation require them to prove they are in committed relationships by showing they have been living together for several years. This is usually part of their tax systems.

    • aceboy says:

      “What country in the World gives residential and employment rights to same-sex partners?”

      many many first world countries.

      Try to not be so ignorant.

    • just the tip says:

      UK, Canada, South Africa, Ireland and so on all do this so it is not that big a thing. Jobs will not be lost because the people who this ruling apply to are already living and working here.

      Funny thing about the last bit is that it the ruling wouldn’t apply to them and I know plenty of straight people who have been done what you are suggesting which makes me think that is were you got the idea from. so really that bit is just scaremongering (sp?)

      • LOLOLOLOLOLOL says:

        How about the US? Considering this is where the young man is coming from?

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      Then those many people will be in for a shock when they are asked to prove their ‘permanent relationship’. Most jurisdictions require couples to prove that they have been living together (typically through tax return filings) for several years before they can apply for what is usually called ‘common law’. if they haven’t been living together, then just flying them in really won’t fly.

    • What?? says:

      “What country in the World gives residential and employment rights to same-sex partners?”

      Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, Uruguay, New Zealand, Britain, Luxembourg, Finland, Ireland and United States.

  7. THE MAN! says:

    marriage netween same sex people shoul dnever be allowed in our country. i think that civil partnerships make sense but not gay marriage. i support the minister here. he has a tough job but stay strong fahy there are more with you than against you.

    • No says:

      cite your sources.

    • Legalgal says:

      Fahy’s not anti- gay rights is he?!

    • blankman says:

      MAN – why do you oppose gay marriage? So far no-one has given a coherent reason that doesn’t involve a book full of stories about talking serpents and virgin births.

      • MPP says:

        Not right. You know it.

        • Mike Hind says:

          No. He’s absolutely right.
          You haven’t. No one has.

          If you had, you could easily have posted it here.

          But you didn’t.

          Because you don’t have one.

          Or do you and you’ve just been hiding it up your sleeve?

  8. The Truth says:


    That’s the sticking point – - what and who provides the definition of “permanent” in this regard?

    And how can you determine that any relationship is permanent when, if it is not a married” that relationship can end without any legal discourse, i.e. divorce.

    Strange, huh?

    • just the tip says:

      well one would think a marriage licence from another country should be good for a start, maybe a mortagage in both persons name, joint accounts that have been open for x amount of years (5 years seems like a good number )

    • Legalgal says:

      I support the ultimate effect, but as a lawyer this is a mess. The correct procedure is to challenge the marriage act. Then all else will follow. These “definitions” are creating uncertainty. But hopefully good law will prevail when the courts apply the law to the marriage act shortly.

      • blankman says:

        It’s not the Marriage Act that needs amending – that says nothing about the sex of the parties. What needs to be changed is the Matrimonial Clauses act which says that a marriage shall be void if it’s not between a man and a woman – that one line needs to be deleted. Or the courts have to rule that the Human Rights Act makes that line null and void.

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      Many countries have what they call ‘common law’, where in the couples prove that they have been living together for several years, and continue to live together, in order to be eligible. It is commonly done for tax reasons as the annual paperwork provides for the proof they need. The term gives them many of the same rights as marriage

      • blankman says:

        If this is supposed to be an argument in favour of common law marriage instead of marriage your post is self defeating – your last sentence says “many of the same rights as marriage”. Why not all of the same rights

        • Build a Better Bermuda says:

          I wasn’t making an arguement, for ‘common law’, so in effect it is impossible for it to be self defeating, I was answering a question and clarifying that there is grounds for what can be considered ‘permanent relationships’ in other jurisdictions that can be legally proven. How ‘common law’ relationships are defined in the jurisdictions that use them is set by each jurisdiction. The question posed was “how can you determine that any relationship is permanent when, if it is not a married?”

  9. Good Guy says:

    This is a sad day for Bermudians…why don’t they just tell us to pack up n leave the country because it seems like foreigners will have more rights than a Bermudian and only opportunities will Be provided for foreigners cause this makes it so much easier to get work permits for all foreigners coming to bermuda and there will definitely be no jobs for locals.
    Very very sad.

    • aceboy says:

      Maybe you’re just too stupid to get a job.

    • What?? says:

      Exactly how does this make it “easier to get work permits for all foreigners”? Spouses of Bermudians have always had the right to live and work in Bermuda (without a work permit). This simply extends a small amount of recognition to those Bermudians with a same sex spouse. So will this change make it easier for foreigners to get work permits?

  10. fast forward says:

    This whole situation sounds weird.. This country is heading in the wrong direction. Can we have a referendum please????

  11. Mike Hind says:

    Well done, everyone involved!

    Prepare yourselves for the same tired, false arguments that we’ve all heard before, with a lovely twist of “They’re takin’ our jerbs!!!”

    Hey, all you folks that oppose it, how about providing an honest, valid reason to oppose this – and same sex marriage, for that matter – and then backing it up when someone posts a counterargument?

    That’d be new.

    • MPP says:

      Please, Mike.

      Anytime someone gives you an argument, you holler out (i.e. simply assert) “That’s invalid! Been debunked a billion times. Next!”, then tell the person to be “honest” to give yourself some kind of moral high ground.

      It’s wearing thin.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Simply not true.
        At all.

        What’s wearing thin is your continued refusal to show a single valid, honest reason to oppose same sex marriage and your continued feeble, false attempts at an ad hominem against me.

        I HAVE the moral high ground, by the way. I’m not the one trying to defend the denial of rights to a group of my fellow Bermudians. You are. That very much gives me the moral high ground.
        You know what else does? Not using false, dishonest arguments like you do.
        For example, when someone tries to give me an argument, I do say “That’s invalid”… after explaining WHY it’s invalid. It’s odd that you left that out. I wonder why. Could it be because it doesn’t fit into your narrative? Probably.


        Will you be showing a valid argument against same sex marriage any time soon?

        Or just continue this weak attempt to denounce me, personally?

        (I got a buck says I know the answer…)

        • What?? says:

          To be fair Mike “because the bible tells me so” is a valid argument to personally oppose same sex marriage. It only becomes invalid when they attempt to impose that personal believe on others and on the law of land.

          • Mike Hind says:

            This is something I’ve said ad nauseum.
            That is exactly my position.

  12. oh dear says:

    The Government by due process thru the Appeals Court and onwards must appeal this Judge’s ruling. It must be tested within the highest Court available – even thru to the House of Lords. In the meantime single people of whatever persuasion must acquire a ‘permanent’ partner. Yeah!

  13. Rich says:

    Well “permanent” might be nebulous, but then again so is “stable”. Even if neither term can be defined, at least “permanent” imposes more of a burden than “stable”. There’s an argument that the Department of Immigration can chose to only accept those persons with marriage and/or civil unions from overseas as amounting to “permanent”. It still leaves the law a bit opaque but at least there would have to be some legal status existing.

  14. john doe says:

    the violence in Bermuda is gonna get worse when all this Gay rights etc gets passed remember i said this smh. Its sad the world we live in today

    • Mike Hind says:

      And now anonymous mentions of violence.

      Is this where we’ve come to?

      THAT is what is sad!

    • aceboy Number 2 says:

      It is sad that people like you perpetuate violence against others. Go join isis, you’ll feel right at home.

    • Anbu says:

      Thanks for incriminating yourself. Now we know who to look for first when it pops off. Smh

    • Hannibal Lecter says:

      There is literally no correlation between Gay rights and violence – and don’t act like straight people don’t commit crimes.

  15. Panama jack says:

    I have no problem as long as it’s a period of time before the person could get employment. I have been trying for a few years just to get my daughter just to vacation in Bermuda and the process is tedious.

    • Onion Soup says:

      Panama Jack, the only thing your daughter needs to vacation in Bermuda is proper travel documents and an address to tell Immigration as to where she’ll be staying. So what’s the problem? And what has that got to do with same-sex marriage or partner rights?

  16. clearasmud says:

    What is the legal definition of a permanent relationship? Married couples had to be married 10 years before they no longer required a work permit so if my permanent the Government means at least 10 years I have no problem with the ruling!

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      Many other jurisdictions already provide documentation of permanent relationship, typically under the terms ‘common law’ or ‘marriage certificates’. That would the defining requirements.

    • blankman says:

      You’re confusing the need for a work permit with the ability to obtain status.

    • What?? says:

      A spouse of a Bermudian has never required a work permit as long as they remain a spouse of a Bermudian. After 10 years of marriage they can apply for status and then live and work here in their own right.

  17. No laughing matter says:

    This is getting complicated…So…after living here for 10 years with their same sex Bermudian partner,will the non Bermudian same-sex partner qualify and be able to apply for Bermudian status too?

  18. Thumb it down says:

    Wow I am still rattle that one man (Judge) can speak on behalf of all of us. I am baffled… please someone educate me seriously.

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      He isn’t speaking for us, he is speaking for the law… more specifically the Human Rights Act.

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

    A Gay man’s perspective on marriage and why he will be voting NO.

  20. Born B says:

    What’s even more sad is that no one appealed his first decision, now its a permanent law…. dont blame for what comes next!

    • Mike Hind says:

      Such as? What’s coming next?
      Or is this another hit and run post with no real substance?

  21. overboardhope says:

    We need a division of Church and State.

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

    If this is not “valid” or “honest” enough for Mr. Mike the Oracle Hind…then it only solidifies the depth of deception and the horrendous mind conditioning of the masses as to where we are today.

    Can’t get more scientific answers than this…unless he didn’t run this dissertation past the authoritarian of this subject.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Here’s why this is invalid:

      Regardless of the “science” coming from a YouTube channel called “Theology”, your point is moot.

      It doesn’t matter in any way whether it’s a choice or not, as that is not a stipulation for marriage. Other things that are choices are protected from discrimination. Religion, for example.

      Now, while you’re wrong in your premise that it’s a choice, that a moot point, as it has no relevance to whether someone should be allowed to get married.

      Do you dispute this? Am I incorrect? If so, why?

      I await your reply.

  23. realdeal says:

    Everyone’s against it until there daughter or son come home an perhaps reveal that he or she is gay…what than? does this law still have the same outlook???? This has nothing to do with our future in kid’s. Your basically saying I do not wish this law to be passed because my child might choose to be gay?!?!?!!! Its a possibility they might choose other?? Its always about an imagine with our society or what someone thinks or has to say about you, which is why Bermuda will always be this small minded country where everyone is judged on things that don’t even have an affect on day to day living. People who are focused on their own future an bigger and better things don’t look down on these persons simply because of there sex. And what makes me laugh these people who discriminate are unhappy with there own lives, who cares what someone, who is not even a priority in your life is doing, at the end of the day I guess they are doing it because its worth doing. If you ask me someone who can live that life style and still be happy despite what others might think or say deserve nothing but the best. It’s not as easy as it looks.

  24. Ed Case says:

    I thought religion was supposed to be about love. So why are all these bible thumpers spreading hate? This island is full of religious entitlement and it is obscene.