Preserve Marriage: Hotel Was “Clearly Informed”

January 19, 2016

The Preserve Marriage/Concerned Citizens of Bermuda group have released a statement saying that at the time of the booking for the same sex marriage forums held last last year, the Hamilton Princess “was clearly informed that the booking was for Preserve Marriage.”

In November of last year the Concerned Citizens of Bermuda released a statement saying they would be hosting two public forums at the Hamilton Princess, and the hotel subsequently said they will not be accepting the booking as the hotel’s policy is “to celebrate diversity in all its forms.”

At that time, Allan Federer, General Manager of the Hamilton Princess, told Bernews, “We were not advised what the nature of the booking was,” explaining that it was originally booked by an organisation with a different name.

“They have not officially signed a contract and no money has changed hands, so we advised them that we cannot accept the booking,” Mr Federer said. “The Hamilton Princess’ policy is to celebrate diversity in all its forms, so we advised the organisation that we cannot take their booking.”

The forums were then moved to the New Testament Church of God on Dundonald Street.

In a statement today, Preserve Marriage said, “Preserve Marriage quickly responded stating this was not the case, conversely, at the time of booking the Hamilton Princess Catering and Conference Services Department was clearly informed that the booking was for Preserve Marriage.

“In the meantime, Preserve Marriage met with Mr. Federer and asked him if he would make a retraction about his statement that the Hotel was misled by the booking of a different name to which he refused.”

In response to today’s statement from the Preserve Marriage/Concerned Citizens of Bermuda group, the hotel told Bernews that the “Hamilton Princess stands by its previous statement.”

The full statement from Preserve Marriage is below:

In November 2015 the Hamilton Princess & Beach Club accepted a booking under Preserve Marriage in which Dr. Ryan Anderson was due to speak on “What is Marriage and Why It Matters?”

Dr. Anderson presents an argument not on the basis of morality, theology nor tradition, but from a philosophical standpoint and documented sociological studies.

The PhD graduate from Notre Dame speaks at major universities such as Yale, Harvard, and even the United States Supreme Court, but was banned from speaking at the Hamilton Princess and Beach Resort by Allan Federer, the hotel’s General Manager.

Preserve Marriage, now a registered company, is the movement that was started by a diverse representation of concerned citizens in Bermuda. Almost 7,800 persons have signed their petition on their website and a Volunteer Committee of almost 400 are actively involved on action teams to preserve marriage. They believe that marriage in Bermuda should remain defined and upheld as a special union ordained by God between a man and a woman.

This union celebrates the necessary natural differences between a male and a female to procreate, fosters moral integrity, strengthens the family unit and therefore our society. For these reasons they are opposed to same-sex marriage in Bermuda. They feel government should not redefine marriage, but uphold the current definition of marriage because children deserve the distinct and separate parenting gifts that moms and dads bring to their lives.

In November, the day after the hotel prepared the Banquet Event Order accepting the booking under Preserve Marriage, it was later cancelled before the BEO by Mr. Federer. Mr. Federer told the media, “We were not advised what the nature of the booking was,” and made the accusation that it was originally booked by an organisation with a different name.

However, Preserve Marriage quickly responded stating this was not the case, conversely, at the time of booking the Hamilton Princess Catering and Conference Services Department was clearly informed that the booking was for Preserve Marriage.

In the meantime, Preserve Marriage met with Mr. Federer and asked him if he would make a retraction about his statement that the Hotel was misled by the booking of a different name to which he refused.

“Maybe Mr. Federer did not know his department prepared the Banquet Event Order [BEO], however, the BEO speaks for itself.” stated Mark Hall, a Director of the Preserve Marriage Board.

Pastor Gary Simons, Senior Pastor of Cornerstone stated, “Another name” at the time of booking that Mr. Federer is referring to is Cornerstone Bible Fellowship, however, the facts show the event was never booked under Cornerstone.

Cornerstone along with over 50 other churches and other non-faith organizations have been meeting and helping with the Preserve Marriage initiative. The simple fact is that a Preserve Marriage volunteer in our office was charged with securing the venue while other churches and organizations were charged with other matters of preparation for Dr. Anderson’s visit.

Here are the facts of the booking:

At the time of booking the email sent to the Director and Catering and Conference Services clearly stated the following which was in bold text and underlined in the email… “…book this please on the dates below and they would like to have 500 chairs set up for it. The contract, however, would not be Cornerstone, but with the group called “Preserve Marriage”.

The Hotel offered the Harbourview Ballroom in response and confirmed pricing and some other logistics. The response given back to the Hotel in writing was, “Okay please go ahead and hold this booking for Preserve Marriage. The sign at the entrance should say the same thing. Please note, Cornerstone Bible Fellowship should not be on anything in reference to this. I will look out for the BEOs for this…”

The Banquet Event Order was then sent in the name of Preserve Marriage from Hamilton Princess which the following caption clearly articulates:

Preserve Marriage - There Was No Deception

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (196)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Truth (Original) says:

    The Hotel released this statement:

    “The Hamilton Princess’ policy is to celebrate diversity in ALL its forms”

    If that be the case, shouldn’t they have accepted the booking? Diversity in ALL its forms would, of necessity, include heterosexual couples?

    Just asking.

    • Cup Of Tea Anyone? says:

      you are either trying to be funny, or are just a Binford.

      im gonna go with the latter.

      The hotel is denying the booking of a group that seeks to DENY EQUAL RIGHTS OF OUR FELLOW BERMUDIANS.

      Get it?

      you prob wont. being a binford and all.

      but i hope you will

      drink more tea, be less of a binford.


      • HW says:

        The speaker was speaking on what marriage is and why it matters. It’s ridiculous to dismiss this sort of discussion as if it’s not relevant, no matter what your ultimate position is on the matter.

        • Cup Of Tea Anyone says:

          no. he is a major opponent to SSM aka he is AGAINST EQUAL RIGHTS.

      • Truth (Original) says:

        Trying name call people into silence is a bullying tactic that is employed when you lack a sound argument.

        Some pretty vile names are being used to shame people into silence.

        Etc., etc.

        Pack away the names and defend your argument. “Diversity in ALL its forms”, would that not include heterosexual couples?

        • Daylilly says:

          Truth Original & HW my like button is not working…… Thank you for your original truth.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Who is discriminating against heterosexual couples?

          • Truth (Original) says:

            At the moment, Hamilton Princess.

            Any thoughts on my question?

            • Mike Hind says:

              How are they discriminating against heterosexual couples?

              My thinking on your question is: “I don’t understand how they are discriminating against heterosexual couples” and “why is discrimination only bad when it’s against heterosexual? Why isn’t “Truth” speaking out against the ACTUAL discrimination that gay couples are facing?”

              Those are my thoughts.

              • Truth (Original) says:

                The group preserve marriage was hosting a talk about the validity of keeping the union of marriage between a man and a woman. No bigoted comments made, no homosexual bashing. No hate speech. Just solid political and societal reasoning on the subject.

                The princess cancelled the reservation citing that it wants to “celebrate diversity in all its forms”, except this one, apparently.

                If a pro-same sex marriage organization booked a reservation to have a talk at a neutral venue to discuss SSM and that it should be allowed and venue cancelled citing that they want to “celebrate diversity in all its forms”, I suspect that you would be opposed to such a position because it is, by definition, discriminatory.

                Is it not?

                • Mike Hind says:

                  So… how, exactly is that discriminatory against heterosexual couples?

                  And promoting discrimination is, by definition, not celebrating diversity.

                  There is no actual validity to keeping the union of marriage between a man and a woman. (Unless y’all are keeping it a secret when we ask for evidence of this validity)
                  There’s no solid political and societal reasoning on the subject.
                  This talk was about promoting the continuing denial of equal rights and privileges to same sex couples, therefore it is, by definition, discriminatory and, thus, bigoted.

                  It’s not equal on the two sides, so your “If a SSM organization” analogy isn’t valid. They aren’t there to promote discrimination and the promotion of the continuation of a denial of rights to our citizens, based on nothing.

                  Unless you have a valid reason to continue this that you’re hiding from the rest of us?

            • Build a Better Bermuda says:

              But they aren’t discriminating against heterosexual couples, what they refused was to take a booking to host a speaker who denounces marriage equality, and is a proponent for continuing a system of discrimination. Their record speaks for themselves, they have no issues with heterosexual couples and marriage, enough of them are preformed there every year to disprove your assertation. When they said they support diversity, their rejection of the booking was based on the fact that the event was intent on denouncing diversity

    • wahoo says:

      I pity the hotel this is a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. The argument goes in circles.

      • HW says:

        No it doesn’t. They were the ones who led and mislead the public. They should just do the right thing and come out and say they lied to the press. Then, if their position is truly that they are opposed to what the law in Bermuda says about marriage, they should publish what sort of events and people are allowed in their premises. I could respect that more even though I still disagree with it

        • HW says:

          Should have said *lied*not led.

        • Build a Better Bermuda says:

          Where does it prove they lied. The subject line says Re: Preserve Marriage Meeting, but the email is to someone at Cornerstone, which one then becomes the logical entity seeking to rent the venue?

    • Mike Hind says:

      Wait… When did the Hamilton Princess refuse service to heterosexual couples?

    • I Don't Think So says:

      Preserve Marriage, having no further arguments, played the victim card.

      • Just saying says:

        No its called speaking the truth. The hotel lied Mr. Federer pulled the booking for what ever reason and painted Preserve Marriage as under handed in lying about it.

        Second- the meaning diversity is as follows “the quality or state of having many different forms, types, IDEAS”. To preach diversity and not allow two sides of any discussion is the opposite of diversity.

        If this was the reverse ( a pro gay presenter coming down and being denied a space to present) then we would both be saying that diversity for the presentation of opposing points needs to be honored.

        Just saying

      • Build a Better Bermuda says:

        The email doesn’t even fully support them. Other than the subject line of Re: Preserve Marriage Meeting, there is no revenue to say what entity is renting the venue. The logical assumption would be Conerstone as the entity as it is from their email. There is nothing in the email that states what the entity in question intends to host there, or even who from the hotel was sending the email as they cut that bit off. This release doesn’t prove that the hotel knew that the venue was being booked by an entity calling itself Preseve Marriage, or what was being hosted by the entity, at the time of initial booking request. So it is perfectly reasonable to say that the hotel only found out what was planned for their venue when it broke on the media, and it was at that point they chose to not accept the booking before any further arrangements were made. Can someone please show me where Preserve Marriage declared who they were to the hotel booking, and where they said they were hosting an open meeting of a speaker who denounces diversity and promotes the continuation of discrimination in the legal system?

        • Daylilly says:

          Legitimate businesses don’t make assumptions they make contracts and the booking was made with Preserve Marriage. Full stop.

          Any stipulations to the booking should have been made prior to agreeing to host the event. As repeatedly stated, this is a major hotel chain they can’t pretend to be naive as to how agreements work. The hotel was fine with the booking until being slammed with hate calls and being strong armed by the SSM agenda makers.

          • Not so safe says:

            “As repeatedly stated, this is a major hotel chain they can’t pretend to be naive as to how agreements work.” – This is NOT a major hotel chain. Hamilton Princess Hotel & Beach Club is owned by the Greens – Fairmont are/were the management company.

    • just wondering says:

      I wonder if you would think the same thing if the group that was seeking to book the hotel was (for example) the KKK – I think the Hotel clearly stated its position – one suspects that this :preserve marriage” group could easily have found someone equally as bigoted as they are to hold their function.

    • cole00cash says:

      That’s an interesting point. Would the hotel actually be discriminating against heterosexuals? That argument can certainly be made and you appear to be making it. However, if a group of people got together to hold a seminar on why interracial marriage goes against the traditional values of the church then I’m pretty sure you’d be up and arms and a mob of people would band together with pitchforks and torches.
      If the Hamilton Princess decided to “discriminate” against these people I doubt there would be many upset people unless they were outright racists hidning behind the guise of religion.

  2. Oh! Oh! says:


  3. Try It says:

    does anyone care what preserve marriage has to say?? i applaud the hotel for their stance and support them for so doing. i don’t need to hear or wish to know about the self proclaimed holier than thou group that wishes to push their lopsided view on me, they can go p*** O**

    • HW says:

      You have misunderstood.

      Furthermore, you’re applauding the GM for lying to the public? We all make mistakes but it’s something altogether different when you can’t own up to it. It’s another whole issue when you praise someone for being dishonest.

      You don’t care what they have to say, and that’s fine. But to say it’s not even a worthy discussion is an odd thing. The discussion was not ‘anti’ anyone. It spoke about what marriage is and what the consequences of redefining it are.

      • Zevon says:

        The GM did not lie. They were not informed about the nature of the booking. That’s what he said at the time. PM have presented no evidence to show that they told the GM about the nature of the booking. So it’s PM who are dishonest.

        • HW says:

          He most certainly did lie and mislead. He said it was booked under a guise when it most certainly was not. preserve Marriage has the name given all along and there was no deceit except on the HP’s behalf. They themselves confirmed the booking under Preserve Marriage!

          It’s ridiculous to suggest they didn’t know and even worse to suggest that Preserve Marriage are the ones who deceived them. That’s simply not the case and any attempt to misrepresent these facts demonstrates a clear bias.

          • Zevon says:

            Show us the email where the hotel was told about the nature of the event.

          • Build a Better Bermuda says:

            Where does it say Preserve Marriage is the renting entity. Only in the subject line does it say Preserve Marriage Meeting, but there is no reference to say that Preserve Marriage is the renting agent, in fact, the email originated from the Cornerstone domain, making them the most likely renting agent.

        • Connor says:

          Are you missing something Zevon? Preservation of Marriage as a organization already stands for something that the hotel clearly does not approve of and by their own definition the very name of the group would be enough to prohibit an event

          • Zevon says:

            No one at that point had ever heard of Preserve Marriage. It’s a small unknown fringe group of misfits. The nature of the event was not communicated to the hotel.

            • The Truth says:

              Look at the email at the end of this article – - seriously, dude?! Really??!!!

              • Build a Better Bermuda says:

                I see an email to Cornerstone, with a subject about a Preserve Marriage Meeting. Nothing saying Preserve Marriage was the renting entity or what they planned to present as an open meeting

                • Just saying says:

                  Preserve Marriage is a collection of people from the community so someone who works at cornerstone could have sent the email yes, but as part of being a volunteer with PM.

                  Not to mention the Subject states “Preserve Marriage Meeting”.

    • Connor says:

      That’s a very ignorant comment to make dont you think. And comes from a very self proclaimed more intelligent than thou way of thinking

    • Sabrina says:

      Then don’t attend the event, but to prevent it altogether is wrong. Its like watching television – if you don’t like the program – turn the channel.

      • blankman says:

        Who’s preventing it – all their doing is saying that they won’t let their facilities be used for it.

      • Person who knows a little says:

        Yes, but the company that owns the channel decides what they do and don’t want to be shown on their channel.

        • Sabrina says:

          And every television company broadcasts dramas, comedies, news, sports, and low and behold religious programs that anyone can view or not.

  4. Cup Of Tea Anyone? says:

    AND, fyi, The caption above does not show anything to or from ‘Preserve Marriage.’ it only shows Cornerstone in an email.

    1) it could have been for any event being organised by someone using email address
    2)i thought cornerstone bible fellowship said they were not behind the hate group preserve marriage….HMMMM???????
    3) I am sure the hotel would not be denying Cornerstone Bible Fellowship a booking if they were just going to sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya.

    FFS people!


    • Connor says:

      it clearly says under subject preserve marriage meeting! How is that not clear?

      Secondly the hotel might deny Cornerstone Bible Fellowship on the grounds that it is discriminatory to athiests this is the problem with what the hotel does any i would refuse to spend my money there

      • blankman says:

        This raises a good question – did Cornerstone say they were not behind the group Preserve Marriage?

        • HW says:

          No they did not. I believe what they said was that they were not the source of the petition but that it was supported by a wide variety of concerned citizens.

    • Daylilly says:

      Your anti-Christian, Christophobic slurs ridiculing the idea of Christians gathering in a circle to sing… Is that included in the HP diversity policy.

  5. Marge says:

    Lord have mercy ,I can not believe that we are considering same sex marriage !!!! how disgusting is this ? the thought of two men havng sex is sickening…

    • Wazza says:

      I think it is rather beautiful. Open your mind Marge.

    • steve says:

      Ease up marge,just because you marry someone of the same sex, doesn’t mean they are having sex. Personally, i had far more sex prior to marriage…yet another sin i guess. Anyhow i saw an interview with Ryan Anderson and he gives me the creeps and I wouldn’t trust him.Am I paranoid? maybe but i am a catholic and watched the god fearin hypocrisy in my time… in slow motion.

    • Verly says:

      You’re showing your ignorance. When people think of same sex marriage, why do their minds immediately just focus on the “sex” part. Same sex couples get married for all of the same reasons heterosexual couples do. Personally, I’ve been married for almost 30 years and sex is not the be all and end all of our marriage. There are lots of other important components to marriage, companionship, security, etc. Take your mind out of the gutter and stop thinking of this as just getting laid.

    • St George's Girl says:

      Don’t think about it then.

    • Real Talk (original) says:

      I think the term you’re looking for is “bimpert”.

    • sebring says:

      Hey Marge! I guess they feel the same about you!

    • bdaboy says:

      “the thought of two men havng sex is sickening…”

      stop thinking about it so much, pervert.

    • Mike Hind says:

      What other people do in their bedroom is none of your business, is it?
      Is what you do in your bedroom anyone else’s business?

    • just wondering says:

      oh yes much better to preserve marriage for the likes of Liz Taylor (6 marriages) – Eva Gabor (6 marriages) – as a basis for “reality” TV shows like Married at first sight etc etc – yes lets exclude the gays but allow this to occur without a squeak!!

    • Christopher James says:

      Marge, so is the thought of sex between two fat or old straight couple. So what?

  6. Razor says:

    “Try It” it’s obvious you cannot be objective. I care what fellow people in Bermuda feel about the subject. People should be respected no matter what their position on this debate.

    • Try It says:

      dont bore me. there are more important issues that need to be dealt with than the religious narrow minded blinkers on group like this. Will the island survive with out them yes, will we survive years of bad government maybe not. I don’t need them telling me how to live. By the way I like Ta Ta bars, drinking,and the wrong side of the established guidelines of life set by these types

      • Connor says:

        If it bores you then maybe you should waiver your right to vote seeing that the opinions and well-being of your fellow citizens and country “bore you”

  7. Razor says:

    I just checked out the emails on their website. Seems like Hamilton Princess knew for sure it was Preserve Marriage. They released their emails on under Resources and then Press Releases.

  8. Cup Of Tea Anyone? says:

    I wonder what would be the concensus if the KKK wanted to hold a conference in bermuda? would you all still be chanting “freedome of speech?”

    effin hypocrites.

    real good christians these lot are.smh

    • HW says:

      I wonder what the consensus would be if white people wanted to hold a black panthers meeting because they identify themselves as being ‘black’.

      See what I did there? I too used a ridiculous and offensive comparison that bears no resemblance to the current situation.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Actually, it is a valid comparison.

        Preserve Marriage seeks to preserve legal discrimination and the denial of equal rights and privileges to a group of citizens for no valid reason whatsoever using similar tactics – lies, misinformation, distraction, evasion, moving goalposts, straw men and other logical fallacies – as hate groups like the KKK.

        As “cup of tea” says… I wonder if people would be as up in arms if the KKK were denied services.

        • Connor says:

          Tke KKK were national terrorists Mike Hinds in case you haven’t studied American HIstory i have yet to read about any form of terrorism performed by Preserve MArriage. IT is like comparing the Taliban to Matin Luthers peacful protests the kk lynched people Protect Marriage brings in a speaker to speak peacefully on a topic in perfect line with the law

          • Mike Hind says:


            The lengths you will go to rationalize.

            It’s amazing how you just ignore points that prove your position wrong.

            Off topic question: any chance that you’ll provide a valid argument against changing the law to allow SSM, like you claimed you had? Or will you continue to refuse to do this and then lie about doing this?

        • Quinton Berkley Butterfield says:

          Unfortunately Mike, and I hate to say this, denying the KKK would not breach the HRA 1981, because there is a specific clause about inciting racial violence. The HRA needs some adjustments.

  9. Cup Of Tea Anyone? says:

    i just signed their petition as Yodi the Jedi using email what utter fake petition is this crap?

    • HW says:

      Good use of your time- it will soon be discovered and removed, as with all the other nonsense people like you have put on there.

      • Quinton Berkley Butterfield says:

        If someone signs the name John Johnson on their home computer, Denice Watson on their work computer, Nancy DeCouto on their phone and Harry Smith on the computer at their BFFs house, will those extra signatures be removed?

  10. Coffee says:

    The owners should be held accountable .

    • Zevon says:

      What do the owners have to do with it?

      • Connor says:

        I personally wouldn’t spend my money in a place that hires management with such an operating code and a blatantly bias on at that

        • Mike Hind says:

          Exactly! How DARE they take a stand against bigots! Fire them all!

        • Zevon says:

          And I Would spend my money at places that aren’t run by bigots. It’s a free country.

          • Just saying says:

            Technically they are bigots.

            The definition of bigot “a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions”

            Another view and opinion was going to be expressed and service was denied because of that view.

            Just saying

  11. John says:

    Why do we Bermudians pay foreigners to come in and tell us how to lead our lives anyway , lots of snake oil salesmen looking for sheep .

  12. JoCo says:

    Having read the press releases on the Preserve Marriage website the only information presented to the hotel was the name of the group, which was technically booked through a third party. As such, I don’t think they should be held responsible for choosing to not allow the event to take place at their property. To me, it appears that that decision was made once more information became available to them through the general public advertisements put forward by the event organizers themselves.

    Furthermore, the hotel operates as an international chain, which means they have to follow the protocols set by the name of which the hotel operates under, in this case Fairmont. I highly doubt Fairmont would have been okay with said event taking place at one of their locations, whether they own said location or just operate it.

    • HW says:

      So you’re naive enough to think they didn’t know what Preserve Marriage stood for?

      Also, please show me where the hotel has a policy that the law of the land is not permitted to be discussed. The discussion wasn’t anti gay and never spoke against anybody whatsoever.

      Hotels host groups with differing viewpoints all the time. They’re being very selective and hypocritical in this particular instance

      • JoCo says:

        Not at all, but hosting a private event is different from hosting a public forum at a hotel.

        Actually, the whole idea of the group is to prevent a segment of the population from receiving the same rights as others. That’s the basis of discrimination. The hotel, a private entity merely exercised their right to refuse service to a group whose purpose is to advocate for blatant discrimination.

        • Connor says:

          How does that make any sense at all? Marriage is not a right and it is not discrimination to say marriage is between one man and one woman not between two members of the same sex its a fact.

  13. Y-gurl says:

    Oh get over it “Christians” ?

    • HW says:

      Followers of Christ are called Christians so there’s no need for the quotes there.

    • Daylilly says:

      Why all the Christophobic anti-Christian slurs…how intolerant.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Exactly. Pointing out hypocrisy and mocking people for bigotry is EXACTLY the same as supporting the denial of equal rights to a group of citizens.

        How DARE they!

  14. Zevon says:

    It’s a whole load of nonsense about nothing. The hotel said it was not informed as to the nature of the booking. The hotel was telling the truth. You can agree or disagree whether or not they should or should not have taken the booking. But the fact is, they told the truth.
    It’s starting to look like it’s Preserve Marriage that can’t be trusted to be honest. First the get a third party to handle the booking, to disguise the nature of the booking. Then this press release, misleading the public about what happened.

    • HW says:

      LOL how did they disguise it? It was booked and confirmed under PRESERVE MARRIAGE!!!!

    • Connor says:

      I don’t know how educated you are in the nature of booking events but the name of a group is not enough, there needs to be an organization especially for financial reasons thus no matter who was used for booking it was clearly done as a Protect Marriage meeting i.e. the subject of above email

      • Zevon says:

        And no one told the hotel what the nature of the event was.
        Until that point no one had ever heard of Preserve Marriage. After all, they’re a bunch of bigoted misfits.

        • Daylilly says:

          HP is an established international hotel chain with lawyers and professionals to determine what it’s booking requirements were. The booking was made under Preserve Marriage because Preserve Marriage met the requirements. The whole “nature of the event” idea was obviously invented by some higher up/lawyer in response to the SSM agenda makers.

          In terms of bigotry, doesn’t it mean to be intolerant of another’s view. Well, by an extra shoe and wear it because this one fits you just right. That’s your prerogative to have an opinion, but don’t tell anyone else that they can’t also have an opinion and stand for their beliefs because that would make you the bigot.

        • Just saying says:

          The hotel has never asked for what the nature of any event is ever. They have only started to ask for such information recently to cover their backsides.

          Not to mention the nature of the event is clear in its name and Mr. Federer decided to use his executive authority and pull the booking.

          Even if he didn’t know the nature of the meeting, the correct thing would have been to contact the head of the organization and simply ask the nature of the booking not deny service because of what he does not know.

  15. St George's Girl says:

    If preserve marriage is really all about “morality” and “family”, when is the conference about all the single parents on the island and everyone with multiple baby mamas/daddies? Or is maybe more about hating on the LGBT community? Please quote me the bible where Jesus (an actual Jesus quote) speaks against homosexuality. And don’t bother with Leviticus – unless you are just as vehemently against tattoos and cotton/lycra mix leggings.

    • John says:

      Exactly modern day hipocracy we are more holy than thou so many folks like to play god these days I got news for you there is only one and he made us all the way we are and he never spoke out about homosexuality in the bible why? Because he made us all fools !

    • HW says:

      You’re completely missing the point, churches do a great deal to address sin in all it’s forms and to help people in their brokenness.

      There isn’t a group of divorced people or adulterers who are seeking to uphold those things as an ideal.

      • St George's Girl says:

        No there isn’t, but these people are not shunned or thought of as “disgusting” or even committing an illegal act! My point is that hetrosexual people who have multiple children with mutiple partners are surely a bigger threat and danger to preserving marriage. And most of them would advocate their lifestyles over marriage. This is not about ‘preserving marriage”, this is about hating on gays. Don’t try and dress your prejudice all pretty. Admit your motivation.

        • HW says:

          It’s an amazing thing for you to suggest you know my motivations. You have no idea what you’re talking about whatsoever. You could not be more wrong when you accuse my of being prejudiced.

          Believing that having a culture of strong marriages is best for society is not prejudicial. Categorizing, labeling, assigning motives, and calling people names when you don’t agree or understand their position might help you to reconcile why people have a differing opinion from yours, but it doesn’t make your assumptions about them true.

          • Mike Hind says:

            If having strong marriages is so important, why do you oppose people getting married?

    • Connor says:

      Religion is not the issue at hand so no one needs a bible quote given. The LGBT at this time is the biggest threat to marriage and you cannot repair a castle with enemies at the gate nor can you fix already failed marriages while the LGBT hopes to further destroy the very definition of marriage

      • Mike Hind says:

        Here we go again with you spreading these lies.

        I wonder if you’ll actually elaborate this time or will you do your usual: post lies then run away when exposed?

        Why, exactly is it bad to change the definition of marriage?
        How will allowing gay people to share equal rights and privileges “destroy marriage”?

        Do you have an actual reason to continue keeping marriage between a man and woman?
        One that doesn’t involve things that aren’t actually stipulations, restrictions or requirements for marriage?

        • Dr.D. says:

          Just how open would you feel comfortable asking the government in changing their definition of marriage ? Would it be OK to go as far as 2 people of the same sex but not 3 ? How about 4 or 5 people ? At what point is one not being bigoted or hateful because they said no. Excluding the religious definitions, there has always been restrictions, stipulations, and requirements in the law’s eyes. That I’d part of any contractual agreement that people enter into.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Please see below.

            Polygamy is a different fight from this one.
            And, personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. It won’t affect my marriage in any way.

            • Daylilly says:

              The issue is “marriage equality” and the definition of marriage. If we are truly considering other positions, then it would be short sighted not to consider all other positions. Polygamy and Polyamory must be included in the discussions.

              Every action has consequences… intended and unintended. The everything goes and nothing matters position will cost this community too much.

              • Mike Hind says:

                Ok… So your position is that gay people discriminate against polygamists for not going after the “one/one” part of the definition.

                But this is baseless, as you have no evidence of this. None. This is all baseless speculation driven by a desperate need to defend your support of discrimination.

                Have you asked SSM supporters if they disagree with allowing more than two people in a marriage? I can’t believe I’m taking you seriously on this. Your argument is so insane.

                If you are going to say that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married because polygamists can’t… then I have to ask, with absolutely no expectation of a sane answer…

                Why would that be bad? Why would allowing polygamists to get married be bad? Why oppose it?

        • Connor says:

          It can be looked up easily enough that the LGBT has reported hundreds of times specifically in their addresses at the United Nations and in their US campaigns that they wish to not only change marriage but shift society at its core, a fundemental change in society. On what gorunds then?

          On the grounds of eliminating the idea that marriage or a family needs a woman and a man and not two men or two women. They would allow a society in which children never have the knowledge that a mother and father are necessary

          • Mike Hind says:

            So, no, then. You won’t be elaborating.
            You’re just going to continue spreading misinformation.
            Your first paragraph makes no sense at all. It is nebulous babbling.

            Your second is nothing but falsehoods.
            Children will still have a mother and a father. Allowing gay people to get married will not change that, nor will it “allow a society in which children never have the knowledge that a mother and father are necessary”. That is a bizarre and ridiculous claim and evidence of your desperation.

      • St George's Girl says:

        Please, please, explain how LGBT is “the biggest threat” to current marriages as it stands now?

  16. Cup of Tea Anyone? says:

    shining examples of christians these are. good work corner stone. denying equal rights to a segment of our population is a good thing right? right? oh…..waitaminnit.

    • HW says:

      We are all sinners in need of Gods grace. There are tons of ministries supporting the less fortunate, free counseling offered to anyone no matter if you’re a member or not and no matter what you’ve done or where you are in life. There are ministries to support and encourage married couples, children, single people, widows, the elderly, and the sick. There is also a passion for loving people as Jesus would love them and sharing the truth in love, no matter what. Sounds about right to me.

    • Daylilly says:

      Sorry, it was HP that denied rights to a segment of the population.

      • Mike Hind says:

        No. They didn’t.

        They denied services. There is a massive difference between rights and services.

        Wait… is that the problem? You don’t actually understand what the word “Rights” means?

        • Sabrina says:

          That is exactly right – they were denied a SERVICE because of their particular views. You are right – I don’t see the discrimination in that at all.

          • Mike Hind says:

            No. They were denied service because they support legal discrimination and are using lies and misinformation to try to force the government to continue denying access to equal rights and privileges to citizens, based on nothing, something which the management of the hotel disagrees with.

            Why is denying this group a service worse than denying rights to our fellow citizens?

        • Daylilly says:

          It’s great to see that you do agree that HP “denied services” to a group of people based on their beliefs. You are in good company, the Human Rights Commission also agrees and so do MANY people in Bermuda. The hotel should just apologize, every one makes mistakes.

          By denying PM services due its beliefs, HP also infringed on PM rights to have those beliefs.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Nope. As usual, this isn’t true.

            Par for the course.

            Also, a very nice moving of the goalposts.

            Why can’t you ever have an honest, real conversation?

  17. marlin says:

    Maybe they knee ‘preserve marriage’ booked the venue.

    But they didn’t know the vile rhetoric they would spit out of their hateful mouths…

    Did they submit their speeches?

    Or did they just say it was about the sanctity of marriage and they disregarded the fact that they think gays should have rights to be happy?

    I bet the same people that are a part of preserve marriage wouldn’t want a few hundred Syrian refugees relocated to this island. You want to follow gods word than why not make room for your fellow man.

    It’s all b****t

    • HW says:

      Wow. Where to start? Your post clearly shows your bias and that you’ve jumped to conclusions without being informed.

      Please show me one hateful thing that was said by Dr. Ryan Anderson at his talk. I’ll wait.

    • Just saying says:

      marlin please stop. If you’re going to come, come correct.

      Were you present at these forums for the what you called “vile rhetoric”. None of it was hateful in anyway!

      Did HP ask for their talking points is a better question? So far we have heard nothing saying they did or even cared to get that far before denying service.

      As for the last paragraph lets stay on topic. I’m fairly certain we share the same view there.

      Once again marlin you sound irate. Come correct or don’t come at all.

      Just saying

  18. Pravda says:

    Well done Hamilton Princess.
    There is no room for religious intolerance and bigotry.
    Religion will is being exposed for what it is: fairytales written by men in another time.
    Science is proving all the hogwash ever written to be just that.
    Religion was, and is, a tool of control.
    May same love & one love be the way for all, free of religious demonizing.

    • Mike Hind says:

      There is no need for this. People can believe whatever they want, they just can’t demand that other people obey the rules of their personal choice of religion.

      Disrespecting their religion moves the conversation away from what it should be. It allows them to evade and move the goalposts to “You’re intolerant of my religion! Why are you attacking me?”.

      They’re going to anyway, but isn’t it better to rise above?

      • Mikasa.a says:

        Religion is like a having a applewatch its find to have one and be pround of it but when you take it out, wave it in my face and force me to use it that’s when we have a problem.

    • Daylilly says:

      Pravda religious intolerance and bigotry is exactly what happened both in your comment and the day HP closed its doors to preserve marriage.

  19. Pravda says:

    The petition is designed by a cheap Bermuda outfit, using dodgy technology from a third world country.
    Not using a bona fide petition website means this is a total load of rubbish nonsense with bogus numbers…..

    • Daylilly says:

      Pravda “cheap Bermuda outfit, using dodgy technology from a third world country”. So what type of company do you consider legitimate, according to you Bermudian companies are cheap and don’t measure up and what do you consider a third world country?You know many banks and Fortune 500 companies export jobs overseas to what you may consider “third world” countries. The numbers for the petition are real.

      • Quinton Berkley Butterfield says:

        I’ll ask this again: If someone signs the name John Johnson on their home computer, Denice Watson on their work computer, Nancy DeCouto on their phone and Harry Smith on the computer at their BFFs house, will those extra signatures be removed?

        • Daylilly says:

          I don’t know. Were you that scrupulous and discriminating with the non-scientific polls that SSM proponents used.

  20. Mike Hind says:

    Can some of the folks supporting Preserve Marriage please explain why 15c – the opposite sex restriction – shouldn’t be removed from the books?

    All we’re asking for is one valid reason, based on actual things.

    I’m begging you to not bring up the usual things… I’ll try to cover them here so they’re out of the way:

    Polygamy – not something that’s part of this discussion as there isn’t a push for it on a societal level. It’s a different fight.

    Bestiality – animals cannot give consent nor can they sign legal documents.

    Paedophilia – neither can children.

    Incest – a. Family members already have familial rights, so they don’t need the legal aspect of marriage. B. No one is asking for this on a societal level. C. It’s not comparable in any way.

    Marriage as the ideal situation for child rearing – procreation is not a stipulation for marriage. The ability to have kids together is not a stipulation for marriage. The inability to provide the ideal situation for raising kids is not a requirement of marriage. Marriage CAN be about kids, but it doesn’t have to be, therefore, this is not a valid restriction from marriage.

    Religion – someone’s personal choice of religion is exactly that… Their personal choice. The rules and laws of that religion should not apply to anyone that doesn’t follow that choice of religion. If you propose that they do, you’re going to need to explain whether you’d be ok with someone else’s religion’s rules being used to deny you equal rights and privileges.

    Kids have a human right to a mother and father – yes. And, because of the way reproduction works, they… All of them, ever. However, after conception, for the father, and/or viability, for the mother, no one has the “right” to that.

    “Why not call it something else?” – not really a solution. There’s no real reason to call it anything else. Marriage, the religious construct, won’t be changed at all. Opposite sex marriages won’t be changed at all.

    “They’re going to force churches to marry them” – no. They won’t. Churches are already protected. The places that have been sued were places of business, not churches, and, as such, aren’t allowed to discriminate.

    “What will we tell our kids?” – hopefully, “sometimes people fall in love and want to get married.”, but tell them whatever you want.

    I think I covered most of them.

    Now… Having said all that, is there a valid reason that same sex couples should not be allowed to share the same rights and privileges – and there are many! – that the rest of us gain through marriage?

    • Sabrina says:

      Those ARE all reasons. The problem lies in the fact that you don’t agree with them so “YOU” call them invalid, but they are not invalid to the people that believe them.

      • Mike Hind says:

        no. They aren’t. They aren’t invalid because I don’t agree, they’re invalid for the reasons I put there.

        Which one of the ones I put up is incorrect?
        If I’m wrong, show me how.

        If not, I stand by what I said:

        No valid, honest reason has been offered.

    • Dr.D. says:

      Mike you actually make a compelling argument for why this has nothing to do with human rights, and everything to do with a groups trying to convince the government to adopt their position over the current law. I am glad someone on the opposite side made points of demeaning other people who look towards marriage as a solution to their relationship, but since they do not have the numbers or the public voice, they should not be considered equal or over the call of the LGBT population to change the law to suite their agenda. Once they have a “push” by society as you stated, then they can have their turn.

      If you have detected a note of sarcasm in this, it is because that is exactly what I am doing. I find it absurd that people vent in this type of venue, behind pseudonyms and emojis, rather than having legitimate discussions face to face. That being said, it somewhat ironic that if Bernews was to take the same position as HP, the comments attached to each article would only be one sided and people would not have the freedom to express their views, regardless of if it is popular. I am glad that you at least put your real name to your post.

      In the end, the issue of this article was whether HP lied about why they did not allow Dr. Anderson to speak in their facility, not whether you agreed with their decision. A person in authority should stand behind their decision and be prepared to accept everything that comes from that decision. Gay or straight, conservative or liberal, be professional and honest in all that you do.

      • Mike Hind says:

        I don’t understand any of this.
        Are you talking about when I said that people aren’t pushing for polygamy? I don’t know what “points of demeaning other people” is…
        Are you actually denouncing me for not “considering [polygamists] as equal” while defending the continued denial of equal rights to citizens of Bermuda? I don’ get it.

        Then you go on to rail against other people not having the courage to use their real names for legitimate discussion… while doing the same… behind a pseudonym…
        And then another weird thing about Bernews…

        As for the article, I’m not convinced that this organization is telling the truth. After all, Dr. Anderson has been shown, many times, to not be, as you suggest is a good thing “honest in all that [he does]”
        Why should I believe them now, since nothing in this “evidence” shows they’re telling the truth?

        Personally, I think that any group promoting the continuation of a denial of rights to our citizens, using lies, misinformation and dishonesty, deserves to be denied service. There’s nothing protecting them in the HRA.

        Unless they lied when they said it wasn’t a religious thing…

        It’s also odd to me that, in response to my post, you didn’t actually show a reason – valid or not – that we should keep 15c!

        Why is that?

        I’ve been very “professional and honest” in this.
        Will you be?

    • Mike Hind says:


      Yet again, no valid, honest, real reasons were given, nor were any decent arguments offered.

      Instead we got faux victimhood and hit and run attacks.

      Why, exactly, do opponents to SSM think they have the moral high ground?

  21. Mike Hind says:


    “…And, because of the way reproduction works, they… All of them, ever… Have a mother and father.

  22. Razor says:

    Sometimes I really wonder why some people write comments. I personally am for both sides to share their point of view. But it is apparent that some for SSM must be full time bloggers that have an agenda to try bully people into silence. But it is not working… and I find it SICKENING! Please stop – it makes you appear weak and so defensive. There are people of faith and those who don’t practice faith and all in between. Do you not know anyone that has faith and intelligent. Surely you must know someone you respect that is a practicing Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. Have some respect that their is a GOD and if you don’t believe in Him, then at least respect those who do.

    • Mike Hind says:

      No one is silencing anyone, nor stopping them from practicing their faith. The only people bullying are those forcing the denial of rights and privileges onto citizens of this country based on their personal choice of religion.
      I agree that people should respect that some people believe in God.
      But what I have a problem with is when they expect other people to have to follow the rules of their personal choice of religion.

      • Dr.D. says:

        There is no “forcing” taking place here, people are practicing their rights to express their desires on a particular current law. How they came to believe in their choice, whether through religious conviction, or through life experience, is not the issue, and neither group should be demeaned because of the way they came to their belief. I see way too much personal history being played out in these blogs, which is not condusive to open, healthy, dialog.

        • Mike Hind says:

          People are being denied rights. No real reason has been given to continue this, now that they have asked for this to be fixed. People are using false information, lies and other dishonest means to support this baseless discrimination. These dishonest means are causing the continuation of this unfair and unjust law. Therefore, they are forcing the denial of rights.
          As mentioned… And seemingly ignored… People can believe in whatever religion they want. They just shouldn’t be able to demand that others do the same. In voicing opposition – again, with no valid basis at all – to having this law changed and, in the case of this group, using misinformation and lies to do so, they are doing exactly that.

          • Dr.D. says:

            Yet you could be considered to be doing the same thing that you claim is being done. You are also demanding that the law be changed for a population that you feel is being discriminated against. The government discriminates against populations every day. The ultimate issue is whether this discrimination have validity over other forms, and should it be changed. You have not stated how the government is discriminating, versus other organizations (eg. Insurance companies, hospitals, etc.) Surely if you feel that an organization has a right to choose how they run their business, how can you ask the government to force them but not others simply because you agree with their form of discrimination (eg. HP)

            • Mike Hind says:

              No. It’s not the same.

              One side of this fight is trying to gain equal rights and privileges for themselves.
              The other is trying to continue denying rights and privileges for other people.

              Get it?

              When this goes through, nothing will change for anyone not directly involved in a same sex relationship.

              You say “The ultimate issue is whether this discrimination have validity over other forms, and should it be changed.”

              And that’s exactly right. That’s why I keep asking, over and over, for one valid, substantive and REAL reason to continue this discrimination.
              No one has ever offered one.

          • Sayso says:

            Hey Mike
            Would you discriminate against a prostitute who wants the right to practice their ‘profession’?

            • Mike Hind says:


              I KNEW I forgot one!

              A. Nothing to do with the subject of marriage equality
              B. No, I would not. What other people do with their bodies is none of my business.

              Why do you ask?

  23. Billy Mays says:

    I don’t care who knew what when, as long as this hate group is precluded from the larger venue, good wins out.

    • Sabrina says:

      Thank you.

      It was exactly people like you that got me started. Preventing Preserve Marriage from putting on their event at HP was the catalyst that was needed to get people motivated enough to speak out. No longer will we stand by the sidelines and allow ourselves to be bullied by a small group of people. I promise you, SSM would have been much better off had Ryan Anderson been allowed to speak. And every time you have SSM advocates bully the faithful and demean religion, you just help “our” cause.

      Please – keep it up.

      • Mike Hind says:

        The only bullying happening here is from those that support the denial of rights to bermudian citizens.

        • Dr.D. says:

          Using words like hate group and bullying does not make it so. There is no action that has taken place that would fulfil the definition of the words you keep using. It diminishes the validity of your arguments to continually espouse words that incite people to anger and closed minded statements even when presented with facts that contradict them.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Um… I didn’t use the words “hate group” and I only used bullying in response to others using it.

            The rest of your post is glass-house arguing, accusing me of behavior actually being done by people on your side.
            My “argument” is very simple. There hasn’t been a valid argument offered to continue the denial of equal rights to Bermudian citizens.

            Your argument is… what?

        • Sabrina says:

          No that is not bullying, that is people expressing their views. Bulling is what advocates of SSM have done. Calling people racists and bigots because they have a different opinion is bullying. Demeaning people of faith because they believe in God is bullying. In a free and democratic society, people have different views – live with it. You want to fight for what you believe in – great – go for it. However, don’t you dare criticise someone else for doing the same for their beliefs. In my opinion, the only way to have this decided is via referendum – deal with it.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Ohhhh! So it’s only bullying when it’s done to you.

            Got it.

            Yeah. That’s not true at all. None of this is.

            Still no actual reasons to keep 15c from you. Why is that?

            • Sabrina says:

              Thats just it. NO one is bullying you (advocates for SSM). There are people who disagree with you but they are not bullying you.
              Bullying: using strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.
              That is what SSM advocates have done. That is what they did with HP. That is why you now have MANY people who are now voicing their opposition to SSM.
              As I have stated above – there are valid reasons why people are against SSM – these reasons have been listed over and over again and I will not keep going over it now – you do not agree with them – fine. That is your right.

              • Mike Hind says:

                No. Not even a LITTLE bit true.

                “Bullying: using strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.”

                Like you and opponents to sam are doing.
                You are forcing society to deny people rights.

                SSM advocates are trying to do the opposite.
                People are affected in negative ways because of your position.
                No one will be affected in a negative way because of ours.
                In fact, no one – other than the people who will then be able to get married – will be affected at all.

                You say:

                “As I have stated above – there are valid reasons why people are against SSM – these reasons have been listed over and over again and I will not keep going over it now – you do not agree with them – fine. That is your right.”

                But that’s simply not true. You haven’t listed valid reasons. No one has.
                You can’t just say “We listed them over and over” without that actually happening. It’s dishonest. It’s a lie. No one has listed a valid reason at all.

                As I mentioned to you, it’s not about me agreeing or disagreeing, it’s about facts and the fact is, you haven’t listed a single valid argument that stands up to scrutiny or even a simple discussion.

                If you would care to, I’d love to have this discussion. But please, at least have the decency to not lie about it.

              • Daylilly says:

                Well said Sabrina.

  24. Truth is killin' me... says:

    Hamilton Princess PR response is damage control 101!

  25. bermudafirst says:

    While not 100% conclusive, the information in this article does show that the HP did have what seems to be quite clear information on the organization hosting the speaker. Choosing to deny a meeting on the importance of marriage is very unfortunate when what we need is more of such information. Supporters of SSM for example could learn about exactly why marriage is between only a man and woman :-) The focus on changing and making marriage what it is not is misguided and no amount of aggressive and bullying behavior/comments will change that.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Would you care to explain why a marriage is between only a man and woman?

      • Sayso says:

        Would you have come into existence if your parents were the same sex? God created marriage and He said it is between a man and a woman.
        You might not believe in God but he is sovereign and His absolutes are His absolutes. All I know one is day you will bow down and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

        • Mike Hind says:

          This is a religious argument. As I mentioned up the thread, your free to believe in whatever you want.
          But you CANNOT expect anyone else to and you certainly cannot demand that they follow the rules of your religion.

          Non-religious people can get married. Therefore this is not a restriction against marriage.

          And procreation is not a stipulation. Therefore this entire argument is invalid.

    • HW says:

      What I find interesting is that many in here who are so opposed to the Preserve Marriage and so quick to assign motives to their actions, were largely absent during Ryan Anderson’s talks. The few that were there did nothing to debate or challenge him when he spoke. Yet now they feel so confident in spreading false info about him or misrepresenting what he spoke about…

      I know of one person in particular who has no issue publicly bashing him, but who chose not to say a word the night they attended. Perhaps they realize they could do much better attacking him when he’s not present and that they were unable to dispute or debate him face to face.

      • Mike Hind says:

        What I find interesting is your outright refusal to give any reason at all to continue this discrimination and denial of rights…

      • Daylilly says:

        HW, Just disappointed that I could only push the like button once… Very well said.

  26. Sayso says:

    Hey everyone
    Would anyone object if the law changed to favour prostitutes and polygamists?
    No discrimination they are fellow citizens with the same rights as everyone else.

    • bermudafirst says:

      Well said/good point Sayso. How about animals as well? Didn’t someone try to legally try to marry their dog/pet a couple of years ago? It’s OK isn’t it? Who are we to say others can’t be happy? Isn’t it about happiness and personal rights? Here’s some info i found online quickly:

    • Mike Hind says:

      Other than prostitution, I covered all of this in my post up thread.

      Polygamy is a different fight and doesn’t need to be discussed here.
      Many people don’t actually have a problem with other people wanting to have a different kind of marriage from theirs.

      And, “bermudafirst”, animals can get married as soon as they are able to give consent and sign legal documents.
      Until then, this argument is ridiculous.

      • Says says:

        The underlying problem is that Hamilton Princess was wrong to discriminate against a group of people who disagree with another group. Not condoning ones lifestyle does not mean hate.

        I am disappointed with Hamilton Princess. Just be fair !!

        • Mike Hind says:

          So… Discriminating against people is wrong… But you don’t support same sex marriage?

          How do you justify that?

        • Mike Hind says:

          And, the group you are talking about have repeatedly expressed a position that they support the continued denial of rights to a group of Bermudian citizens and have given no valid reason for it.
          This isn’t about the disagreement. It’s about the denial of equal rights and privileges to Bermudian citizens.

          If you want fairness, stop supporting discrimination.

  27. bluwater says:

    Obviously this whole thing has backfired on Cornerstone big time. Haters gonna hate even after they doll it up.

    • Says says:

      I don`t see how it backfired to Cornerstone. Hamilton Princess is getting praises for dishonesty….wow so sad indeed.

      • bluwater says:

        By whom? The Cornerstone trolls? People are massively indifferent to Preserve Marriage. HP has solidified it’s position with it’s customers and IB. What a waste of time trying to out them with a flimsy email that’s not even the whole truth.

        • Daylilly says:

          Hmmm…Cornerstone trolls, but of course you don’t belief in Christophobic, Anti-Christian, hate speech. You believe in tolerance?

    • Daylilly says:

      You seemed to have learned the art of repeating a lie and people will believe its true. Well many people are not buying the lie your selling. The public wants to preserve marriage and knows that HP made a poor decision.

      • Mike Hind says:

        No, “daylily”… that’s what YOU do.
        You continually post lies, then attack the person who points them out.

        To paraphrase you “just saying someone is a liar doesn’t make you a truth teller”

        And believe me, you are NOT a truth teller.

        • Daylilly says:

          Mike people can read you know.

        • HW says:

          What is truth to you Mike?

          • Mike Hind says:

            Basically, the opposite of what you post.

            The truth is… the truth. It is things that are real. That are based on facts and data, not – as you seem to enjoy doing – something you just made up whole cloth off the top of your head to suit your needs to support continued discrimination.

            Both of you have continuously lied, time after time, again and again, on this subject.
            You have twisted words and spread outright mistruths.

            You have also, repeatedly, refused to offer one single valid reason to continue discriminating against Bermudians. You keep posting arguments that have been shown to be false or invalid, then disappeared when asked simple questions.

            I’ve asked, many times, for a conversation about this. For a discussion.
            You haven’t done that. You’ve just posted misinformation and evasions.

            It’s disgusting and bad for our country, this level of dishonesty.

            • HW says:

              This is a clever way of not answering my question.

              What I find funny is that one of your fellow supporters in a previous thread told a ridiculous lie that a 3 year old could easily dismiss and when I called them on it, they refused to admit the lie and you had no issue with it. So please don’t pretend that you are some pursuer or upholder of truth. In fact, I’m not even sure you know what truth is as you’ve refused to answer me.

              You can keep saying that I’m lying but it doesn’t make it so. It’s a weak attempt to shift the discussion or to try and appear as if your position is stronger.

              • Mike Hind says:

                Are you even remotely kidding me?
                The ONLY person in this conversation trying to shift the discussion is YOU!

                This glass-house argument is ridiculous.

                I very clearly answered your question in my reply. Just because you ignored that doesn’t make it any less true – see? The FACT is that I answered your question. The thing that you made up is that I didn’t.

                Other people’s posts aren’t my concern nor responsibility.

                You haven’t denounced every lie someone has told, especially the lies you’ve told, so how on earth are you trying to take the moral high ground?

                I’ve pointed out your lies and explained, with facts, how they are lies.
                THAT makes it so. I can – if I wanted to… which I don’t and haven’t – claim to be a “persuer or upholder of truth” because I haven’t lied. You have. Repeatedly.

                And the only thing that makes my position appear as if it is stronger is the fact that it IS stronger. I have expressed my position, many, many times, and explained my reasoning and put forth my argument.
                Not once has that argument or position been opposed. Not by you, not by anyone. Instead, you do exactly what you are doing here… weak attempts at shifting the discussion, evading answering questions and straight up refusing to show a single valid argument – that was one of your lies, by the way, when you said that you HAD shown actual arguments – against removing 15c.

                Instead, you’ve posted lies and misinformation and logical fallacies.

                Now. Any chance that you’ll actually put forth a reasonable, reality-based, defensible argument for not removing 15c?

                Or will we have more evasions and misinformation?

                • HW says:

                  And I’ve stated my position very clearly of several times and not lied. Nor have I avoided any discussion.

                  I apologize if I’m not able to respond to every single post or if I haven’t restated my position repeatedly but #1 I have other commitments outside of this site and #2 it’s sometimes hard to even follow where someone has asked you a question or responded to a comment, given the way the site is constructed with hundreds of comments not in chronological order.

                  • Mike Hind says:

                    And yet, you STILL didn’t say what it is!

                    You STILL haven’t posted a viable, valid argument against removing 15c and allowing same sex couples access to equal rights.

                    The things you HAVE posted have been shown to be incorrect, many, many times and you haven’t responded to any of the posts doing so. That is, in fact, avoiding discussion.

                    If you can’t even be honest about your own words and behavior, how can we expect to believe anything you say, when you actually DO say something.

                    I asked: “Now. Any chance that you’ll actually put forth a reasonable, reality-based, defensible argument for not removing 15c?

                    Or will we have more evasions and misinformation?”

                    I guess it’s going to be the latter, as usual.

                    If your position is so strong, why can’t you even state it in a post where you’ve said you’ve stated it? If it’s so strong, why do you have to resort to lying in order to defend it?

  28. Common says:

    Gods design for marriage will always be better than mans.

    • Mike Hind says:

      And you can absolutely continue believing that!

      And same sex marriage will in no way affect your God’s design for your marriage.

  29. Christopher James says:

    The one thing we clearly learned from this is that it is unacceptable to discriminate, unless you are religious – then you can hate all you want cos you have religious entitlement. Thus proving yet again that religion poisons everything.

  30. Daylilly says:

    Saying religion poisons everything is like blaming guns for murder. People killed each other before guns ever existed. People hurt people. To blame religion or God is to say that human beings can’t be responsible for themselves.

    China and Russia aren’t dictated by the constructs of Christianity, essentially the whole entire world agreed on the definition of marriage, theocracies and communists alike. The whole world is not homophobic.

    Also, the reality is that we all have the ability to marry within the current definition of marriage. One distinct group doesn’t want to be included in the existing definition, instead one distinct group wants special privileges to re-write the definition of all marriages to suit its needs. The same group also thinks its fair to discriminate by limiting marriage to only 2 consenting adults in its definition. Now that is truly discriminating, particularly if “all you need is love”. What happens if their is 3,4 or 5 consenting adults. You see the “define” part of the “marriage definition” loses its validity, if anything goes and nothing matters.

    • Mike Hind says:


      You keep pushing this false narrative and you keep getting shown that you’re wrong, but you ignore that.

      This “Gay people want to discriminate against polygamists” thing is bizarre and insane. It is completely illogical.
      Polygamy is a different fight and, should people wish to push for it, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. But it’s not a fight right now. And you’re only bringing it up as a desperate attempt to rationalize the discrimination you’re supporting.

      The “one distinct group” isn’t asking for special privileges, they’re asking for exactly the same privileges that the rest of us share. Removing one clause from one act will not change what marriage is. It will simply allow another group to enjoy it.

      I know you won’t read this or respond in a sane manner, but I feel that your lies need to be debunked.

      • Daylilly says:

        I never said “gay people want to discriminate against polygamist” or anybody, not every gay person wants SSM. The distinct group is the SSM proponents. If you choose to make inferences, please don’t put words in my mouth as if I spoke them. You keep trivializing the notion that, as a community we all have to decide if marriage should be redefined. If it is to be redefined, we must consider all of the consequences and people potentially affected by the new law.

        When you disect marriage to what consenting adults feel, you open a very wide door. To say that nothing else but SSM should be considered is very short-sighted and imposing the same prejudices on others that SSM proponents feel has been imposed on them.

        Your argument that “polygamy is a different fight” is perhaps the same argument that could have been presented against SSM. It’s something “different”.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Another lie.

          Daylilly says:
          January 15, 2016
          Do the proponents of SSM hate polygamists and other people in various consenting adult relationships, because SSM proponents want to discriminate against anything other than 2 consenting adults getting married.

          Your words.

          The rest of your post? The usual ad hominems and straw men, accusing me of things I didn’t say.

          PLEASE. I’m begging. Try to be honest.

          • Daylilly says:

            LOL, Again, Mike your own quote of my quote shows that I say “SSM proponents” . Read your own comment. You are a SSM proponent and according to your posts your not gay. Not all SSM proponents are gay and not all LGBT are SSM proponents. That’s pretty narrow-minded to assume that all SSM proponents are gay.

            Again, as previously stated, please don’t put words in my mouth…. Looks like you may need to take your own advice on honesty.

            • Mike Hind says:

              This is just bizarre avoidance. You’re not making any sense.
              It’s sad.

              • Daylilly says:

                Mike. I said this……. SSM proponents want to discriminate and polygamists.

                You claim I said “Gay people want to discriminate against polygamists”.

                SSM Proponent does not = Gay. All gays are not for SSM & visa versa.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  Ok. Nitpick. My bad. I got that wrong, semantically.

                  It doesn’t mean that you’re right. SSM proponents don’t want to discriminate against polygamists.

                  You’re REALLY reaching.

                  Any chance that you’ll actually post a viable reason or argument against removing 15c from the books?

                  Or will you continue to evade that in order to cherry pick things that you can maybe argue weakly against?

      • HW says:

        Mike the entire crux of your argument is that you think people are being discriminated against or denied their ‘right’. So if we see that logic through to its natural conclusion, how can you say that others are not also being denied their ‘right’ or that others are not being discriminated against?

        • Mike Hind says:

          Nope. A complete and dishonest misrepresentation of my argument.

          My ACTUAL argument… the one you keep ignoring… is:

          There is a group of citizens of this country that are being denied rights and privileges that the rest of us have access to. (I posted a list of some of these rights on another thread. You ignored them and ran off, refusing to respond.)
          This denial of rights is wrong. The reason that it is wrong is that there is no reason given FOR this denial of rights. This denial of rights is based on one clause in an act, which would be very simple to remove. This clause is discriminatory.

          I’m not saying that others are being discriminated against. I’ve never said that.
          That is an outright lie.

          Of course other people are being discriminated against.

          But that is NOT a reason that this group should continue being discriminated against.

          We are talking about THIS problem, specifically.
          The fact that there are other problems that we need to deal with doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t fix this one.


          I’ll ask again…

          Do you have a valid reason for keeping 15c on the books? One that you’re willing to discuss and defend?

          I’m more than willing to honestly defend my position. Are you?

          • Mike Hind says:

            Correction: “…that others aren’t…”

          • HW says:

            Yes I do. I firmly believe that marriage is an institution that upholds the ideal for our society. This ideal is 1 man and 1 woman being united together. Why?. This unique relationship looks different for different people but overall the ideal is that they are the foundation and building block for society. They are biologically complementary and while having kids isn’t a stipulation for marriage it is often a consequence of this union. Marriage intends to keep them united to raise any kids that may result from their union.

            When we allowed for no fault divorces, the institute of marriage was undermined and we’ve seen the gradual breakdown of the family unit. This is why I am opposed to the redefinition of marriage as I believe it only further undermines the institute, not strengthens it.