Rainbow Alliance Respond To Preserve Marriage

February 8, 2016

“It is unfortunate that with the multiple serious issues Bermuda is currently facing, a group of individuals would use such a significant amount of resources to advocate to prevent a recognized segment of the population from being able to benefit from rights and freedoms afforded to the majority,” the Rainbow Alliance said today.

The group’s statement is in response to the campaign from ‘Preserve Marriage,’ whose stated position is that they “believe that marriage should remain as a special union ordained by God between a man and a woman because of its impact on society.”

‘Preserve Marriage’, which has been running advertisements promoting their campaign, is planning to hold a public demonstration at 12.00pm on Tuesday, February 9th at the Cabinet Grounds.

In response to their campaign, the Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda said they support “the rights of all people in Bermuda to have their consensual, loving relationships between two individuals recognized and protected – regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.

“The Bermuda courts have already supported this position, ruling that refusing to recognize same-sex partnerships amounts to discrimination – a stance which we wholeheartedly stand by.

“A referendum on this issue disregards the struggle of minority groups in human rights issues. Why should an unaffected majority decide the extent to which an oppressed minority can access their rights? Fundamental rights and freedoms are in place to protect minorities against the shifting passions of the majority.

“Referenda pose a danger to the protections afforded to minority groups through legislative and judicial means. Preserve Marriage‘s rhetoric shows a need for a better understanding on how to be accepting of all persons, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

“Justice Anthony Kennedy’s eloquent writing from the US Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges shows how important allowing same-sex marriage is to the community at large:

“As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. … Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry.

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children [...] suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

“In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage.

Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

“Preserve Marriage’s media campaign against same-sex marriage is offensive and riddled with skewed statistics. For the many non-heterosexual young people and adults in Bermuda, Preserve Marriage’s homophobia is further entrenching the daily exclusion and alienation already faced.

“It is unfortunate that with the multiple serious issues Bermuda is currently facing, a group of individuals would use such a significant amount of resources to advocate to prevent a recognized segment of the population from being able to benefit from rights and freedoms afforded to the majority.

“The Rainbow Alliance will continue to support the rights of LGBTQ+ persons in Bermuda to have safe spaces available and to educate the community on LGBTQ+ issues. For more information, visit rainbowbermuda.org.”

click here same sex marriage

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (138)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Coffee says:

    All I can say is , the church people believe in God .

    • Positivity says:

      Lots of people believe in God and believe in love. Love thy neighbour…..hmmmmmm.

      • Ja says:

        Look if you people want to run around like Adam vs Steve at a starwars convention in purgatory, go right along.

        Just pass my marijuana law so that I can get high and forget about your crazy circus acts in the closet. Might I add where it’s been for donkeys years.

        • hmmm says:

          You’ll find that many of your congregation are gay. If someone is gay, it does not mean that they don’t have faith.

    • Come Correct says:

      If I was created in “gods” image I’d be the hide and seek champion of all time…

      • LT says:

        You can’t hide from God my friend, no one can.

        • Come Correct says:

          If YOUR god actually exists, I’ll answer for it one day. My answer will be a question. “Where were you?”

          • whatwillittake says:

            And He’ll say “right here all the time. You chose not to invite me in. How do you expect me to operate in your life if I am not in it?”

            • Zevon says:

              So let’s get this straight.
              You think that god is an invisible friend who follows you around every minute of every day. He watches everything you do, and listens to everything you think.
              Ok, that’s a bit creepy to begin with. But the purpose of all this is that if you do anything wrong, like pick up sticks on a sabbath, or if you let your mind wander when you think of a girl in a bikini, god will see it and will dam you straight to hell.
              If that’s god you can keep him. He’s a vindictive wierdo.

              • MPP says:

                I wouldn’t like a god like that either.

                Good thing the God of the Bible is nothing like that.

                • serengeti says:

                  Well, according to the bible, that’s exactly what he’s like. Vindictive, violent, and jealous.

                • hmmm says:

                  God loves all of his creations, shame some people can’t see past their personal clouded view.

              • abby says:

                Sin …. and then ask for forgiveness!!

              • whatwillittake says:

                Don’t know what shaped your opinion of God, but that’s not the God I serve. He does not wish anyone to be condemned to hell. He loves you that much – even when you call him a ‘vindictive wierdo’.

                • serengeti says:

                  But he follows you around all day to ensure you’re not doing or thinking anything wrong. That’s correct isn’t it?

                  • whatwillittake says:

                    God is an indwelling God through the Holy Spirit. He doesn’t follow you around like some gestapo policeman condemning you. He loves you. If He abides in you then you will want to do right, think right, act right.

            • Betty Boop says:

              I like that answer, very well said.

          • iabingi says:

            Another athiest who hasn’t faced the foxhole

    • Onion says:

      The religious question is settled. There are religious figures in Bermuda willing to marry same sex couples before god. Now we’re just trying to make the law match.

      • LOL says:

        what exactly is a “religious figure” in Bermuda in your mind? someone who became a minister via the internet or a mail order course?

        • Just the Tip says:

          Wesley Methodist Church

          They have actual preformed a ‘blessing service’ (thinks that what they called it) for one gay couple since they can’t wedding for them at this time

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      And god’s love is unconditional… it is man that has applied the stipulations

      • Daylily says:

        God’s love for man is unconditional. It is when men love God unconditionally in return that the desires of the heart begin to conform to God’s purpose for your life.

        • Build a Better Bermuda says:

          But God work in mysterious ways, so no one knows what god’s purpose is for their life. It would take a tremendous ego to actually think they know god’s plan and their purpose in it… and ego is the barrier to true enlightenment.

        • Cup of tea anyone says:

          God made Adam a man and Eve a woman and they were ment to be together, woman and man , don’t you know anything, you are a abomination to God’ eyes.

          • Zevon says:

            Oh adam and eve. That’s the hideous story about incest, isn’t it?

            • abby g says:

              SIN … than ask for forgiveness.

              Following a book from thousands of years ago, which as been translated multiple times, has talking snakes, stoned women and promotes worshiping a spirit(ghost)? OH in a place that expects you to “give donations” (PAY) so boss man can ride around in a new BMW??? Religion is corrupt!!!!!

          • Build a Better Bermuda says:

            You talk of Adam and Eve, do you live by the Old Testament then, or are you a pick and choose Christian.

          • hmmm says:

            Made Adam and just Adam….eventually made Eve. Eve was an afterthought.

          • Cup of tea anyone? says:

            Just to point out this person is not the original cup of tea anyone.

            THIS ‘cup of tea anyone?’ Supports marriage equality


  2. Cup of tea anyone? says:

    Round of applause. Keep up the good work. You have my support.

    • Let the voters decide says:

      Since so many people say they support it and so many people are against it. The oba should have a REFERENDUM and the lossers can forever shut their cake hOle.

      As Premier Dunkley said “What a waste of F!@#ing film” :)

      • Build a Better Bermuda says:

        Again, the position of equality and equal right must never be a matter of referendum, otherwise what is the point of the Human Rights Act

        • Ja says:

          This vote will be a good thing, what your afraid your side won’t WIN?

          • JD says:

            Not about sides my friend, or winning (?)(!) Human rights aren’t up for a vote. Do you think de-segregation happened in the American South because of a referendum?

          • Build a Better Bermuda says:

            It not about winning, it’s about equality. Should there have been a referendum on segregation, on voting rights. Human rights is just that, human rights, applied to all equally by law, and the law violates the Human Rights Act in that it discriminates against a segment of our community and it being argued on the basis of religious grounds, which again violates the Human Rights Act by freedom of religion. The basis being that no one religion has the right to enforce their beliefs on another or society on a whole. It’s not about winning, because frankly when we try to enforce a denial of freedom of rights on any minority, we all lose, irregardless if it by vote of majority. Has nobody learned the lessons of a half century ago… or was that just the distance of ones conviction to equality.

            • TheOthersideofthecoin says:

              Build a better Bermuda… In the norm of things a good Society is built from trying to do the right things for their people in order for the whole society to survive and thrive. Societies around the world are built up by having the family structure as the core. The family structure in nature consists of a male and female bonding together to grow and procreate and to bring forth members to replenish those that die off in the society. A same sex society cannot even exist naturally by itself. Two males by themselves cannot bring forth a child neither can two females by themselves. This would ultimately result in that society of people not surviving. If it was not for your mother and father being of opposite sex you would not be here. Therefore the normal of things should not be changed because you feel that you have the right to do wrong and everyone in society should allow you this right at the detriment of themselves and society as a whole.

              • Build a Better Bermuda says:

                Your thinking is old and stuck in a rut, all sides of the arguement agree that in order to raise a child right in this world, they need a strong supportive environment. Where you are stuck is that, that environment has to be a man and a woman… there is enough studies out there to refute this old notion. There are enough child’s of single parents out there that have gone on to lead successful lives, there are enough children out there of same sex couples that have gone on to lead normal and successful lives. There are also children out that that have been screwed up by single parenting, same sex parenting and even heterosexual parenting. In fact, in this country, 100% of those here that have been screwed up by bad parenting are as a result of hetrosexual relations, not same sex couples.
                As for the very tired arguement of it takes a man and a women to make a child… it’s just tired, I mean honestly… do you know how over burdened the worlds orphanages are with children that need a strong supportive family environment. Same Sex Marriage is not going to be the end of humanity, humanity will be the end of humanity.

              • Mike Hind says:

                That’s why no one is asking for a same sex society all on its own.

                They’re simply asking for equal rights and protections under the law.
                That’s it.

                Oh, and procreation or the ability to do so isn’t a stipulation or requirement for marriage, so this isn’t really an argument to not allow folks to get married.

                You say “…at the detriment of themselves and society as a whole.”, but don’t explain how allowing people to get married to the person they love would be a detriment to others and society as a whole…

                Why is that?

        • Jonathan Eve says:

          All of you that keep using this human rights argument as to why same sex marriage should be allowed are full of it. If you were truly concerned about equal rights there are many issues of more importance that affect a much larger segment of our population.

          Example – there are far more people that have been convicted of marijuana use (not even mentioning the thousands that smoke) than there are people how want to get married to the same sex.

          Another – There has always been a disparity in financial remuneration between blacks and whites, and its not small.

          If you are not gay, and are truly fighting for equal rights, then these issues are far more important and affect way more people (gays included) and need to be dealt with.

          One more note – if the LGBTQ community were to start standing up for more important human rights issues such as those above, they might get more support from the average Bermudian. And they need to stop with the vile name calling towards people who disagree with their choices, it actually reinforces the negative image that some people have towards their lifestyle. Remember you are asking people to side with you.

          • hmmm says:

            We all get arrested if we are caught holding drugs.

            That is equal rights…we all have a right to a phone call and a lawyer too.

            That is equal rights.

          • Sirious Doe says:

            Where do you see any name calling?

      • Cup of tea anyone says:

        It sounds very des gusting from a premier to talk the way

  3. Daylily says:

    It is good to see that the government is at least giving the people an opportunity to voice their opinions.

    • The public discourse on this issue is necessary, our elected officials should encourage open and honest dialogue. I hope we have a diverse attendance, and I hope the conversation does not include hate speech. Disagreement doesn’t mean bigotry. This discussion affects every stratosphere of society, and its conclusions will affect generations to come. As such, the country should decide by referendum.

      • Hmmm says:

        Of course, disagree or agree away. Whilst you are airing you opinion a minority group of people are treated as less and have less human rights than the rest of us. Are you an oppressor?

  4. Rita Realistic says:

    Excellent piece. Shame on the bigots. They must be dispersed.

    • No laughing matter says:

      Bigots? Some of the people who scream and shout for “equality”, for “love to win”, are the same people who will be up in arms if one of their family members brings home a black boyfriend or a black girlfriend. Some of these same people will go out of their way not to hire black Bermudians.

      If I were you, I would not use that word bigot too loosely!

      • aceboy says:

        If my son wants to marry a black woman, or my daughter a black man, they can. It is not illegal. I would have no problem with it. Stop making up bogey man stories that are irrelevant to this discussion.

        • No laughing matter says:

          The truth bites doesn’t it? You know VERY WELL that there are bigots on this community who support SSM but can’t support their own kids or a relative in an interracial relationship. They can’t support hiring black Bermudians. It’s not irrelevant. It’s called bigotry! So stop calling people of faith bigots. Take a very good look in the mirror.

          • Mike Hind says:

            Why not name and shame? What they are doing is wrong!

      • abby g says:

        What does this have to do with anything????

        Inter-racial marriages/relationships are widely accepted now – compared to in the past.

  5. cromwell says:

    Animal Farm was a book about a socialist political correct animal pointing out that some animals were more equal than others. Well the pro gay marriage proponents only see themselves as equal animals even when it is clear that there is a difference between a man and a woman!

    For some people all humans may be equal but a man is not the same as a woman. Denying the difference is like the Emperor not wearing any clothes every one see it but no one wants to speak it out; well men and woman are different and come together in sexual union which is not an act of same sex!

    • Zevon says:

      You’re quite happy to hide behind religion as an excuse to ensure you are more equal than gay people.

  6. The rainbow alliance can write as much correspondence as they want to try and justify their position, the bottom line is that this is to great of a issue to be decided by the rainbow alliance or coalition, and to great of a issue to be decided upon by the church or politicians.

    This issue will effect all of us who live in Bermuda and including many unborn generations to come, so if we had a sensible government,this issue needs not be debated on the floor of the house of assembly,neither pushed into legislation by the senate. If anything at all we should demand a referendum so that the entire voting public has a right to exercise their democratic right to have a say on such a important piece of legislation.

    My next concern is the ruling by the chief justice that will come into effect at the end of this month, that will also create a disaster for the working class Bermudian on many fronts, where these same sex partners can now bring in their significant other to reside and work, then I am certain their children of these foreigners will be allowed in also.

    So go right ahead keep pushing the average Bermudian, and keep thinking that the majority is passive and full of hot air, I just pray that the fall out from all this mess don’t shock the life out of something we have never experienced in this country. The next thing is to cram it down our children throats in the school system and make it a part of our school curriculum, Then tell me whose rights are being violated.

    Why is this government so hell bent to push this thing through and at the expense of holding the majority as they are homophobic, let the people have their say and do it by referendum.

    • Positivity says:

      It’s called equality. Sad that those discriminated against have to fight so hard to get it.

      • LOL says:

        two gay men are not equal? what are you measuring for comparison?

        • Fsbod says:

          Why do you say two gay men? There are gay women as well.

          And their rights are not equal because the cannot get married.

    • Unbelievable says:

      This issue is of great importance, I agree, but it has zero affect only other person living in th tis country if they are not gay. That old trope gets rolled out everytime.

      What about the numerous gay couples who are in long term relationships already and have done so for years? Who live together and own homes together? How have these people affected anyone?

      What rubbish!

      • LOL says:

        what about bringing in more men infected with AIDS to spread in Bermuda? if you think healthcare is expensive now, watch where the resources get allocated.

        • hmmm says:

          Now you are just being silly and ignorant. That is like saying ban black marriage, because statistically we are the highest demographic with AIDS in the USA.

          Absolutely ridiculous and highly shameful of you.

        • Just the Tip says:

          This is scaremongering at it worst,your acting as if giving people equal rights will open some sort of flood gate.

          You should be ashamed for using such a tact since you are not only trying stimagtize gays but people who have to deal with this very serious disease

        • Mike Hind says:

          Wow! That post is pretty hateful, ignorant and disgusting!

          You should be ashamed of yourself

    • Mike Hind says:

      “This issue will effect all of us who live in Bermuda and including many unborn generations to come”


      • dawn says:

        (crickets chirping)

      • LOL says:

        when was the last time a man became pregnant?

        • Mike Hind says:

          When was the last time getting pregnant was a requirement for getting married?

          • The universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is not historical coincidence. Marriage as it is currently defined in law did not come about as a result of a political movement, neither is it solely a religious doctrine. As it is currently defined, it certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. Simply, it arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.

            • Mike Hind says:

              So, it was in prehistoric times that getting pregnant was a requirement?

              Because it isn’t now. No one is required to be able to have kids in order to get married.
              This entire argument is false and doesn’t apply as a reason to stop same sex couples from getting married.

              Am I wrong? If so, why?

              • TheOthersideofthecoin says:

                Mike you are Misconstruing the point… No there is not a requirement for a person to be able to to get pregnant to marry. But for a society to survive as nature intended the requirement is that the two be of opposite sex in order for the whole society to thrive and bring forth children to replenish that die off.

                • Mike Hind says:

                  I’m not misconstruing the point at all.

                  The point is that the ability to have kids is not a requirement for marriage, so using that as a reason to stop same sex couples from getting married is wrong.

                  AND, allowing them to get married will in absolutely no way stop society from surviving as nature intended (which is a faith-based anthropomorphism. Nature doesn’t have intentions. But let’s leave that out for now.) because opposite sex couples will STILL be able to have kids. Same Sex Marriage will have absolutely NO effect on that.

                  So… how is this a reason to stop folks from getting married?

      • Coffee says:

        Like if your best mate from high school and your dad gets together and marry . Your dad passes and his husband inherits everything .

        • Mike Hind says:

          Yyyyyeah… kind of like what happens now if the dad gets married to a girl you were friends with?

          What’s the difference?

    • We the People (1st!!) says:

      “…from being able to benefit from rights and freedoms afforded to the majority.” It continues…

      “A referendum on this issue disregards the struggle of minority groups in human rights issues. Why should an unaffected majority decide the extent to which an oppressed minority can access their rights? Fundamental rights and freedoms are in place to protect minorities against the shifting passions of the majority.”

      Sex-Sex has NO HUMAN RIGHTS to marriage.

      Only two years ago the highest court in Europe Human Rights said this, “European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples.” The court reaffirmed that the European Convention on Human Rights cannot be interpreted “as imposing an obligation on contracting states to grant same-sex couples access to marriage”.

      In fact, NO human rights law requires countries to grant same-sex access to marriage.

      The reason why you are afraid to take this to a referendum is because you know that FACTS. Out of all of the countries worldwide that have legalized same-sex (only 21 countries), only one has done so by popular vote aka referendum. Governments have imposed same-sex on society that vehemently rejects it.

      This press release is extremely deceitful.

      • Mike Hind says:

        No, this POST is extremely deceitful…

      • Daylily says:

        I wish I could like this comment 10 times. Well said.

      • JoCo says:

        You are in fact incorrect regarding this.

        The most recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is from 2015. The current position of the EHCR places a positive obligation on governments to have the legal framework in place to recognize committed same-sex relationships, see Oliari and Others v Italy (2015).

        Before you post, please make sure you have all the current facts.

        • We the People (1st!!) says:

          In your comment you missed the key statement, “recognize committed same-sex relationships,” this means in a civil partnership but not marriage.

          The ECHR Oliari v. Italy, is that Italy should pass a civil partnership law, but there is no right to marry for same-sex couples.

          The fact is that the judgment was framed in terms of a right to material benefits, which are obtainable via civil partnership not marriage.

          All that ECHR case is saying to Itlay is that the lack of recognition of Same-Sex relationship, and that civil partnership fixes this problem. Having reached this conclusion, the court felt that there was no need to make a finding on the additional ground of DISCRIMINATION (in terms of marriage).

          I don’t know what the general feeling towards civil partnership are but I know the majority of people around the world do not support same-sex marriage.

          I am well aware of that case in Italy. The principal position of ECHR is still civil-partnerships are good enough and there is no need for marriage. I’m not going to talk about civil partnerships as the focus is on marriage.

          But please before you post, make sure you have an UNDERSTANDING of all the current facts.

          • JoCo says:

            Yes, that is correct. However in the present circumstance, Preserve Marriage is advocating so that even civil partnerships would not be allowed to take place. This goes against the ruling of the case in Oliari. As there would be no legal framework at all to recognize these relationships.

            • We the People (1st!!) says:

              I understand what you’re trying to say. However, this Same-Sex group is advocating “rights” to be married. They themselves are not even asking for civil partnership.

              Instead of taking a step this SSM group wants to take a large leap forward straight for marriage.

              I don’t think civil partnerships need to be a discussion at this point. You can use that ECHR Italy ruling when civil partnerships are the focus of discussion. Then we can have a discussion on civil partnerships.

              But thanks for the respectable conversation.

              • JoCo says:

                The big issue between marriage and civil partnerships, is the fact that it then becomes a separate but equal setup. Which as past situations of such a setup have shown are never actually equal.

                Denying same-sex couples the ability to be married, even if other legal means to recognize the relationship are available amounts to discriminating against human beings and stigmatizing their relationships.

                That’s my view on the matter.

              • Mike Hind says:

                No. They are saying that marriage offers rights. They are asking for equal ACCESS to those rights.

    • Um Um Like says:

      Duane, please describe exactly how this will affect you. As I recall from one of your many ridiculous posts, you are an “ex-homosexual”. If same sex marriage becomes legal, will you become an ex-ex-homosexual? Is that how this will affect you? If not, then how?!?

    • abby g says:


      MARRIAGE* is a contract issued between two people by the STATE (in this case Bermuda). The religious ceremony is nothing with out the marriage LICENSE. So no…..the Church should not have any say in if this is allowed or not.

      However, churches can decided if/if not they want to have same sex couples hold religious ceremonies in their place of worship.

      • TheOthersideofthecoin says:

        abby g… the Church are the people… Are you saying people of religion do not have a say?

        • Mike Hind says:

          They absolutely DO have a say… in their own lives and relationships.

          But do they have a say in other people’s lives and relationships?

          ABSOLUTELY not.

    • Get with it Bermuda says:

      Wow, vote for equal rights?! Seriously?! Not sure how any person can sit there and say that they would vote to ensure some segment of the community is not treated equally. Martin Luther King Jr must be ROLLING in his grave. A vote to keep segregation would have been appalling – it’s human rights! Race, Gender, Religion and Sexuality should all have the same rights.
      This is appalling. It’s sad that you think it’s ok for a gay Bermudian to have to MOVE away from his/her country, to be married to the one they love. They are Bermudian, and have a right to marry and live in their country…..sorry if that is a problem for you but you all talk about Bermudians first. I know at least 6 Bermudians who stayed overseas that are gay, because they live in fear of returning because of people like you who think its ok to keep them down. Like you say Bermudians first…

  7. Pro voice says:

    Clap clap clap, the rainbow alliance speaks VOLUMES! The rainbow alliance has so honorably stated what MOST Bermudians have been asking ALL along! With multiple serious issues Bermuda is currently facing a group of individuals (namely this group SSM) would use such a significant amount of resources to advocate and prevent us from dealing with the most IMPORTANT issues! Lets be real, if this law passes how much of y’all locals are going to get married?? Ten? Twenty? And a few foreigners? But you have the nerve to say with sooo much more important issues?? That’s what we have been trying to tell you all since this conversation STARTED “why is SSM front row and center when it’s “so much more important issues”.??? Finally. Now we can start real dialogue…tell Bermuda rainbow alliance and “crew” why your agenda is the most pressing issue amoungst the various “serious issues that Bermuda is currently facing?…You have the floor

    • Mike Hind says:


      So, because only a few people are affected, we should ignore this?
      Because there are worse things happening, we should just shut up and allow discrimination and injustice to happen?


      Here’s a question…

      If it’s not that important to you, why not just allow same sex couples to get married?
      Why is it such a big deal to you? If there are so many more pressing issues and so few people will be affected, why not just let them remove the single clause in the law and be done with it?

      • No laughing matter says:

        “Wow”??? That’s all you got, Mike?? Wow??

        LOL!! Hey y’all! Mike is officially at a loss for words! LOL!! Thanks Pro Voice for putting a sock in it . I’m sure a lot of people have had enough of Mike trolling on this site.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Did you miss the rest of my post?

          Or do you just not read past the first line? Is that why you constantly mistepresent the things I say? ‘Cuz you don’t actually read them?

          As for trolling? I know you’re desperate for me to stop proving you wrong every time you post, but that doesn’t make me a troll. Posting silly little personal attacks like this one? That certainly puts you in that category!

        • Anbu says:

          But mike isnt trolling lmao. Ignorance certainly is bliss in this country. Your little “wow” comment is however trolling. Learn the difference. TROLL. There you ve just been trolled by a troll

    • No laughing matter says:

      Very well said Pro Voice. The nerve of this rainbow coalition to criticize preserve marriage but when was the last time rainbow coalition addressed any pressing issues and needs in the community other than their own self serving agenda? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

  8. Mike says:

    “………….let the people have their say and do it by referendum”.

    On the assumption that “51% would be a majority” in a referendum, then you cannot have 51% oppressing the remaining 49%.

    The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.

    • LOL says:

      exactly how many gays are there in Bermuda? I never see it mentioned. there are however, over 1,000 Muslims who have been excluded from the debate. the Koran says five wives is a good thing but not in Bermuda.

      Allahu Akbar
      Allahu Akbar
      Allahu Akbar

      • Mike Hind says:

        First off, why does it matter? Is there a cut off for discrimination? Is there a number that it’s ok to be unfair to?

        Secondly, polygamy is a completely different discussion and, if someone wants to bring it to the courts, we can have that discussion then.

        Support for SSM doesn’t equal opposition to polygamy.

      • Daylily says:

        That’s a point to be considered. If marriage is re-defined for one group, what legitimate argument is left to keep the number to 2 consenting adults.

        Reach out to your MP and I think there will be public discussions on February 11th at Ruth Seaton James & February 15th at Berkley.

    • No laughing matter says:

      You could argue the same thing for the 2012 election. Why should the 53% oppress the 47%??

      That’s why it’s called a VOTE. Vox populi, vox Dei! A referendum is the ONLY way!!!

  9. LT says:

    If gays can get married but people can’t smoke weed there is something wrong.

    There something hugely disturbing about seeing 2 men walking down the street holding hands, really disturbing image.

    • LOL says:

      would your image be any better if you where stoned?

    • Mike Hind says:

      First off, Yes. You’re right. People should be allowed to smoke weed.
      But these are two different fights. One has nothing to do with the other.

      Secondly, there is something hugely disturbing TO YOU about two men walking down the street holding hands. This is disturbing to you. No one is forcing you to look. Them holding hands doesn’t affect your life in any way. Oh, and they’re already allowed to do that.

      We’re talking about marriage.

      Should your distaste for them have any effect on whether or not they should be allowed equal access to rights and privileges afforded by marriage?

      If so, why?

    • Um Um Like says:

      If you find that “hugely disturbing”, then move to Nigeria. I’m pretty sure you won’t see it there in your lifetime.

      • Cup of tea anyone says:

        You don’t just move to a country and make your laws as you please, that is not how it goes. You go by the customs of this country which is a conservative country with friendly educative people. You are the guess, you accept how it is here or don’t stay here and go.

    • Zevon says:

      Iplenty of things are disturbing. Thugs walking around Hamilton leering and making nasty comments at young girls is disturbing. Ill-mannered teenagers in shops swearing loudly in front of kids is disturbing. Walking through pa la ville park with my kids and having to walk around drunks drinking out of beer or whatever in paper bags is disturbing.
      Far more disturbing than seeing marriage equality.

    • Longtail says:

      You should stick to talking to your invisible friend ‘Longtail’… your comment makes no sense.

  10. LOL says:

    what about other interest groups like Muslims who would marry say five wives? why are Muslims being excluded from the discussion? what is this two person marriage nonsense all about?

    there most certainly are more Muslims living in Bermuda than gays.

    Allahu Akbar
    Allahu Akbar
    Allahu Akbar

    • Mike Hind says:

      Polygamy is a different conversation. One that we’ll gladly have, should you press the government to allow for it and remove the proscription of two people.

      However, as mentioned before, support for SSM does not preclude support for polygamy.

      You might have some trouble from the Preserve Marriage folks, though…

    • Zevon says:

      Muslims should not get special treatment. Nor should christians, jews, bhuddists, or worshippers of the great juju mountain god. Religions are all just groups of like minded people who believe the same myths.

      • The Truth says:

        You just stated that Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or worshipers of any god should get special treatment BUT you want the country to allow same sex marriage to a small select few – - allowing special treatment? Does that make sense?

        • Mike Hind says:

          But they’re not. They’re not asking for special treatment. They’re asking for EQUAL treatment.

          Getting the same access to rights as the rest of us isn’t special treatment.

  11. allinlove says:

    If the Rainbow Alliance is all about respect and love then there would be no reason to publicly call names and there would be no reason to crash the opposing group’s peaceful demonstration they have been arranging for weeks. Many people who agree with same sex marriage are even saying it is wrong that they are imposing on an event that is not their own.

    Also, just so everyone is aware, the stats are not skewed. Look at Alberta, Canada and how gender is now optional for school children, and Sweden where “he” and “she” pronouns are being done away with. Look at a woman who was an advocate for the LGBT community who spoke out on her experience with having 2 lesbian mothers; she no longer supports same sex marriage. The stats are not skewed. This is reality.

    • Daylily says:

      Well said! The people and the government should consider ALL of the ramifications of reordering society.

  12. Imjustsayin says:

    The problem is that Bermuda is controlled by two things. Religion and Alcohol.

    • Ta Smith says:

      Don’t forget the OBA’s multiple choice decisions that they tell you 1 day after their candidate Andrew Simons big loss.

  13. mixitup says:

    Rainbow Alliance says………..Preserve Marriage’s media campaign against same-sex marriage is offensive and riddled with skewed statistics. For the many non-heterosexual young people and adults in Bermuda, Preserve Marriage’s homophobia is further entrenching the daily exclusion and alienation already faced.

    Personally, I think it’s having an opposite effect and speeding up acceptance… just sayin

    • clearasmud says:

      I think that their own press release is “skewed” especially when they quote a US Justice who is bound by a constitution which does not in any way resemble our own constitution! Why should any one here care what “Justice Anthony Kennedy” has to say?

  14. It's about LOVE says:

    It really would be a change in dialogue if SSM supporters took advantage of the meaning of ‘affect’ and stopped holding on to the notion that it only means to ‘negatively affect’. Use your adjectives and let’s change the conversation from defensive to opportunistic. Yes SSM WILL affect our island – POSITIVELY!! There are endless examples. Surely you can see the advantage in this?

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

    Sorry folks…there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow here in Bermuda. Click your heels together three times “Dorothy” and you’ll soon find out!

  16. blah blah says:

    A marriage is and always will be between a man and a woman. The UK got it right, civil unions for same sex couples. That does not pervert marriage. imagine if there were Adam and Steve in the Garden of Eden, human existence would have been very fleeting … go forth and multiply a joke.

    • serengeti says:

      There were no such people as adam and eve. They did not exist. If the story were true, it would have taken generations of incestuous sex to produce descendants. Just one of the easily-disproved disgusting lies in the bible.
      But hey, you can believe anything you want. Just don’t use it to persuade others who use rational thought.

  17. Cup of tea anyone? says:

    I’d like to point out there is am ignorant bigot posting under my handle. Pretty sure people can tell though, considering the terrible grammar and spelling.

    Equality for all!

    Love eachother.


  18. Eugenie says:

    It is my understanding that Bermuda is subject to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights which was established in 1959 in order to enforce compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Based in Strasbourg, France, the Court accepts cases from both individuals and states. It only takes on a case after all possible legal recourse has been exhausted in national courts, and rulings are binding on the state against which the case has been brought. This court is an international court independent of any sovereign entity and with jurisdiction over 47 member countries and 800 million people. Enforcement of rulings is handled by the Committee of Ministers, comprised of the foreign ministers of the 47 different countries.

    When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in June, there was no real confusion regarding the US Court’s authority or the scope of its jurisdiction – enforcement of Same Sex Marriage in the UNITED STATES(enforcement of the ruling has been another matter entirely). But the situation is murkier with the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court has left it up to the individual countries to decide the legality of Same Sex marriage. Significantly, when the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the recent case of Oliari and Others v. Italy that Italy is obligated to legally recognize and protect SAME SEX UNIONS, the judgment did not call for marriage equality. The issue of Same Sex Marriage is to be left up to the individual member countries to decide.

    Therefore, given the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights and the current division within the community on this matter , it is only fitting that the issue of SSM be decided by a referendum – not by any special interest group that is either for – or against the issue.

  19. AHHHH says:

    “We can throw all social etiquette out the window and act in ways that would otherwise be deemed rude and unacceptable because god!”

    In this case replace social etiquette with compassion for other humans…

  20. Starting Point says:

    Can we have the benefits that a married couple currently receive outlined please, I don’t know if it has been articulated, tax issues, hospital visitation etc. If someone in the know can inform us it will help people to see the obvious discrimination.

    oh and a call for a referendum is a discriminatory act in its own right. If the traditional marriage folks want to go that way then I call for a referendum for Bermudians to chose the religion they want for our country, all other religions will then be outlawed, and it needs to be the actual faith, methodist, AME etc. if Anglican wins then we can convert the catholic church into a community centre etc.

    of course the first thing out of the hypocrites mouth would be freedom of religion.

    • TheOthersideofthecoin says:

      Startin point… how is a referendum discriminatory when it is a democratic right to vote?

      • Starting Point says:

        Because in matters of human rights, the view of the majority means nothing, unless you would be happy with the majority white population in the US having a referendum to bring back slavery or deny women rights to vote?

        Simple as that.

        • clearasmud says:

          You make a very valid point Except that the ECHR has already rule that the right to marry same sex is NOT a human Right.

    • Eugenie says:


      The ruling below from July 2015 upholds the position taken by the European Court of Human Rights in 2010 in which The European Court of Human Rights, when discussing the role of the judiciary when considering SSM in Europe stated:

      “…as matters stand, the question whether
      or not to allow same-sex marriage is left
      to regulation by the national law of the
      Contracting State. In that connection, the Court
      observes that marriage has deep-rooted social
      and cultural connotations which may differ
      largely from one society to another. The Court
      reiterates that it must not rush to substitute its
      own judgment in place of that of the national
      authorities, who are best placed to assess and
      respond to the needs of society…” *

      * ECtHR, Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, Application no 30141/04, judgment of 24 June 2010.

  21. Watching On says:

    I’m just going to leave this link right here for the Bible believers to read and explain the contradictions to me…as this book is supposed to be Gospel truth.


  22. JUNK YARD DOG says:

    Just say no !


Sign Up For Our Free Email Newsletters