Comments on: Centre For Justice On Marriage & Referendum

By: HW

HW — Sun, 21 Feb 2016 03:33:08 +0000

Your failure to understand the case and what the EU said, and what PM is now saying does not constitute ‘lies’. It’s just that- a failure to understand on your part. Please read more closely.

By: brain drain

brain drain — Sat, 20 Feb 2016 13:38:04 +0000

errr ….. a “view” telling government to stop a group of people having rights is no “view” at all good sir.

By: brain drain

brain drain — Sat, 20 Feb 2016 09:09:45 +0000

Here it is …. obsession with gay sex because that’s all that defines a same-sex couples.

This is the real face of preserve marriage!

By: brain drain

brain drain — Sat, 20 Feb 2016 09:08:44 +0000

…and here it is, the truth behind Preserve Marriage finally comes out!

Bigots and hate speech!

By: brain drain

brain drain — Sat, 20 Feb 2016 09:06:43 +0000

Your true colours were shown long ago.

By: brain drain

brain drain — Sat, 20 Feb 2016 09:05:06 +0000

The only thing draining my brain is having to listen to you.

Human rights do not include oppressing others so ‘fraid you lose on that one.

By: brain drain

brain drain — Sat, 20 Feb 2016 09:02:42 +0000

As ER says, “I fail to see how one can take seriously the demands of a group that publishes either recklessly or deliberately misleading bulletins.”

Hear hear sir.

PM is happy to sit back and release lies to the community, every opportunity should be used to debunk these hack arguments.

By: Keeping pace

Keeping pace — Sat, 20 Feb 2016 01:51:15 +0000

Would have. It did not take place. So what is the relevance?

By: HW

HW — Sat, 20 Feb 2016 01:49:13 +0000

Unlike our government, I have not lied or mislead. You should read the full case as it’s clear you’ve misunderstood and simply accepted what the government has fed you.

You’re missing the key bit where the EUCHR said that the Italian government failed to measure the prevailing community interest to determine the margin of appreciation. No country is forced to implement European convention laws exactly as they are. the EUCHR has stated that contracting states are free to gauge to what degree they should implement laws of the European convention- they can be molded and fitted into that country’s context and culture- this is the margin of appreciation.

However you can’t know what that is unless you measure it. How can this be done? A variety of ways- maybe polls, public info sessions, or a referendum. Given how quickly this has all developed and how the government has clearly mislead people, and how they clearly were proposing legislation before they even held the ‘information sessions’, it seems obvious the forums are not sufficient.

The only logical way to measure the prevailing community interest- WHICH the European convention has said you should measure!!!!- Is by a referendum.

By: Keeping pace

Keeping pace — Sat, 20 Feb 2016 01:47:42 +0000

Please explain how those seeking SSM are being discriminated against. Most all of the negative speech is coming from SSM proponents. Having a different view is and will never be discrimination.

By: clearasmud

clearasmud — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:56:03 +0000

While I agree with the center’s view on referenda I don’t agree with the center’s interpretation on how it relates to marriage equality. The ECHR has already said it is not a human rights issue which would mean that a referendum would not be inappropriate. I would be interested to hear their views on Democracy as it relates to the many deciding for the few.

By: Build a Better Bermuda

Build a Better Bermuda — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:43:23 +0000

Do you not see this as a human rights issue, because you don’t see them as human?

By: brain drain

brain drain — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 19:30:56 +0000

You mean … so much for human rights

By: brain drain

brain drain — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:27:41 +0000

This isn’t a real human rights issue because it’s inconvenient to you?

Sorry you have been inconvenienced!

By: Onion juice

Onion juice — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:53:05 +0000

So much for Democracy.

By: Onion juice

Onion juice — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:51:19 +0000

Broke Back Mountain in Bermuda and we dont even have mountains.
LMFAO

By: brain drain

brain drain — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:57:03 +0000

If popular vote was how countries governed then you’d see more – it’s NOT how countries govern. They govern via ELECTED OFFICIALS. If you want to operate a popular vote system then abolish parliament.

Don’t pick and choose when you want to go to popular vote because your elected official stands up for the right thing and you want your bigoted views imposed on everyone.

Same-sex marriage is equal marriage.

By: brain drain

brain drain — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:53:43 +0000

Oh you mean like this so called Pastor who kept showing thumbs down when the panel talked about same-sex marriage …..

We know you’re part of the PM troll squad but stop telling lies.

By: Build a Better Bermuda

Build a Better Bermuda — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:51:27 +0000

Yes, people do discriminate, however the law cannot… that is the function of the law, it has to be applied equally, otherwise it fails its function. Your entire rejection of same sex marriage is that you view it as different, you view it as something else, it is your view that they are a negeti e and your rational that anyway you can. You base your entire statement above on your limited view of the physical function of marriage, and deny or negate the emotional, spiritual and legal purpose. You’ve previously cited fellow conservative authors who deliberately pick and choose their sources to support their views, ignoring any other findings that would balance or contradict them.
We get it, you don’t want same sex marriage, fine, don’t have one, but as far as same gender couples being able to connect on physical, emotional, spiritual and legal purposes and provide stable and supportive family environments, it is already well documented that there is no real difference between them and different gender marriages. So there is no real basis to say that they shouldn’t be given the same rights as everybody else.

By: J

Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:27:11 +0000

Doesn’t affect me.

By: planeasday

planeasday — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:24:36 +0000

Another one trying to anchor this agenda TO A REAL HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE…

By: planeasday

planeasday — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:22:43 +0000

So rather – “Lets sneak in our agenda through the back door”

Pun Intended…

By: planeasday

planeasday — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:21:52 +0000

GIVE IT A BREAK WITH THE ATTEMPTED SLAVERY CORRELATIONS ALREADY! – Gay people are slave to nothing other than their un-quenching desire to shove their lifestyle down everyone else’s throat…

By: planeasday

planeasday — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:20:05 +0000

Ahhh…but your opinion is of no more weight/value than that of any other…that is why you will woe the day your cause is decided on by all “stakeholders” isn’t it?

By: planeasday

planeasday — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:17:24 +0000

Well Said Sir/Madam. Yet they will still find a way to bend logic and reason…

By: planeasday

planeasday — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:11:34 +0000

They GAY AGENDA act like so much wrong is being done them – Gays get it through your head YOU HAVE NO NATURAL RIGHTS TO MARRY. You are trying to convince us it is a RIGHT. Marriage bestowed upon you is at best a PRIVILEGE.

Your way of life is an aberration to nature and if it were not for the perverse nature of modern society (no doubt infiltrated from within by sympathizers to your cause) whether by artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, or adoption agencies willing to deprive the RIGHTS OF CHILDREN to a MOTHER and FATHER – you would be literally committing genetic suicide.

What in your life will be different the day after you marry?

Deep down you know the wrong behind what you do – that is what this is about really – trying to force everyone else into acceptance of your wrongs rather than admitting to them – that way you can feel some ease from that pricking/uneasy sensation your lifestyle has on your conscience.

By: sage

sage — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:47:30 +0000

Whine, whine…You think racial discrimination ended 180 years ago? Apparently once gays are allowed to marry all human rights struggles will be over, get over yourselves. And go get married, no one will arrest, convict or imprison you for it.

By: Eugenie

Eugenie — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:02:55 +0000

There can be no question on the establishment of legal recognition for Same sex unions. However, the Center for Justice does not have supremacy over the European Court of Human Rights. As per my previous posts on this topic, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has consistently struck down same sex challenges to the marriage laws of any country that is subject to the rulings of the ECHR . The ECHR which recognizes the uniqueness of a union between a man and a woman has consistently ruled in favor of retaining the traditional definition of marriage between a man and woman thereby upholding the primacy of traditional marriage (religious freedoms) over and gay rights when civilian laws can suffice to address the human rights issues with respect to same sex unions. Therefore while countries are required to establish legislative frameworks to recognize and to provide legal benefits to persons in same sex unions , according to the ECHR this framework does not have to be marriage.

However, Pro Marriage advocates have to also understand that rights to same sex unions are enforced by the ECHR on its member countries – even though these unions do not have to be marriages. Countries that do not comply incur hefty fines and other sanctions.

Based on the Bermuda Government’s presentation on civil unions, the proposed legislation appears to have covered its bases, even though it does not leave every one in happy space – on either side of the debate:

-Primacy of the Country’s Marriage laws confirmed in accordance to ECHR
-Legal framework for same sex unions established in accordance to ECHR (via CUs)
-SSMs that take place outside of Bermuda will not be recognized as such and willhave to be registered as CU’s
-CUs to have the same legal benefits extended to them as marriages and
-The requirements for entering into and dissolving CU’s to be the same as marriage unions.

The question for referendum however, could be valid if their is a perceived minority lobby for SSM as opposed to Civil Union and strong public opposition to the changes in the marriage laws …

By: brain drain

brain drain — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:27:09 +0000

Do you know what out of context means? It means you take part of something out of the whole and it so happens that part makes it looks like they agree with you.

The ECHR does not agree with you. They quite clearly told Italy to provide a way for same sex couples to enjoy family life.

They did not tell Italy to go and have a referendum. Stop spreading lies.

By: brain drain

brain drain — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:24:12 +0000

Here we go with the scaremongering tactics. Most children raised by same sex couples grow up in equal or better environments than those in opposite sex households.

Where are you when children are being abused in their mom/dad home? Where are you when children are being given up for adoption by their mom/dad home?

Stop running a campaign of hate and bigotry and using children as your scapegoat.

By: brain drain

brain drain — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:20:11 +0000

Wow you’re good at twisting words. Must come from all the time you spend trolling!

By: HW

HW — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:19:09 +0000

What Bermuda needs to know is that when this quote was read to the AG at the first civil union discussion last Thursday night, he said that quote was from 2010 and indicated the 2015 ruling superseded it. What he failed to mention was that in the 2015 Oliari case, the court REITERATED that same quote. Mr. moniz has to have known this and yet attempted to justify his case for civil unions on the back of this deception. It is, yet again, clear that this government has a hidden agenda and will do whatever it takes to accomplish it.

This is even more reason that a referendum is the way to go. Determine what the prevailing community interest and weigh it against that which is being requested, before fitting this law into our context.

Do people really trust this government to do what’s best for us when they continue to not only disregard the people as a whole, but to DECEIVE the people of Bermuda?

By: brain drain

brain drain — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:18:42 +0000

Our courts have already decided the matter based on our own local laws.

By: Zevon

Zevon — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:29:19 +0000

Until comparatively recently polls in the USA indicated a referendum there would have voted against inter racial marriage. An example of how a referendum can lead to an immoral outcome.

By: Zevon

Zevon — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:21:24 +0000

Not legally. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race.

By: Keepin' it Real!...4Real!

Keepin' it Real!...4Real! — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:39:43 +0000

NOT the same thing.

By: Keepin' it Real!...4Real!

Keepin' it Real!...4Real! — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:34:05 +0000

Don’t come with your personal opinion because it’s just brain drainage…If it is not as I stated then what is the problem with a referendum…let the people have their say…you have the ability to gain access to all the “human rights” you seek through a civil union but you will not rest until you desecrate the word marriage…It is childish and should be met by the hammer of Thor!.

The very thing that you are fighting for “human rights”…you are denying those rights to those that oppose your warped way of thinking…you better put a plug in it before you drain your entire brain…but apparently it may be too late.

By: Quinton Berkley Butterfield

Quinton Berkley Butterfield — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 04:44:44 +0000

Exactly, they keep bringing up highly successful people who were products of a same-sex home, as their example of someone who is against SSM, but never acknowledge that the person is successful thanks to their upbringing. It’s hilarious…

By: Daylilly

Daylilly — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 04:09:40 +0000

Accepting people. We all agree on that. Re-defining marriage not so much.

By: Build a Better Bermuda

Build a Better Bermuda — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 04:07:06 +0000

And where are children’s human right being violated, in my searching have found several testimonials of children of same gender families who indeed speak against same gender marriage, but I have found a multitude more that speak for it. Dr. Lopez is hardly a strong example for children of/against, as he was raised in a same sex family and gone on to be a successful tenured professor. What has happened is that he has jumped the fence, so to speak, and gone full conservative (possible his mothers were just bad parents)… is this reason to denounce same gender marriage, that being the case, different gender marriage should suffer the same criticism and condemnation and be equally banned.
Ultimately what you are saying is that the only legislatively legal marriage should be your ideologically ideal one…

By: Daylilly

Daylilly — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 04:06:15 +0000

Oh, good for you.

By: Daylilly

Daylilly — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 04:02:57 +0000

Brain drain
That was a direct quote, read the cases, they are online. If the European Court of Human a Rights (ECHR) meant for everyone to blanketly enact legislation, then how come each territory/country gets to choose how to implement its rulings.

Do we have a democracy or not? Why have a voting public? We don’t summarily enact all European Laws in Bermuda because as the ECHR itself has said, Contracting States have the right to make laws in step with its culture.

In Bermuda, marriage was the business of the church for over 250 years, the Government didn’t begin to keep records until @ 1866.

By: Curious

Curious — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 03:32:58 +0000

Duane Santucci. You sound like a member of ISIS. I am not signing my name but you will know me one day. I will be in front of all the rest who have no fear of you. Standing stronger and wiser.

By: Lois Frederick

Lois Frederick — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 03:03:15 +0000

..and I disagree.

By: Give it a Rest

Give it a Rest — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 03:02:27 +0000

“Giving in to popular sentiment is dangerous and irresponsible.” – Welcome to Democracy!

By: Lois Frederick

Lois Frederick — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 03:01:40 +0000

No, it’s pretty balanced really. Everyone had a chance to make submissions, as I did. I even got a reply.

By: brain drain

brain drain — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 02:53:02 +0000

Doesn’t change the fact that they should both be accepted.

By: brain drain

brain drain — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 02:51:45 +0000

Strange opinion. Did you feel this way about racial desegregation too?

By: brain drain

brain drain — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 02:45:42 +0000

Y’all cherry pick like you’re making pies for the whole of Bermuda!

Always out of context to suit your purposes.

By: We the People (1st!!)

We the People (1st!!) — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 02:44:36 +0000

I agree.