Comments on: MP Richards: “Referendum Is The Way Forward”

By: Mike Hind

Mike Hind — Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:42:39 +0000

Yes. ‘Cuz that’s the ONLY way to change things.

Come on. Surely you don’t believe that.
You CAN’T believe that marching on Cabinet is the only way to get things done around here.

Or do you?

By: Anbu

Anbu — Sun, 14 Feb 2016 14:35:39 +0000

Its the same so stuff your opinion. Equal rights r just that. Equal. They have the right to marry just like us. The chipmon your shoulder is onviously blinding you.

By: Another Pawn

Another Pawn — Sun, 14 Feb 2016 14:03:50 +0000

Plan a walk/protest to Cabinet with everyone who supports your cause or lie down/type on a keyboard and do nothing.

By: Mike Hind

Mike Hind — Sun, 14 Feb 2016 10:41:17 +0000

What unsocial issues?

By: HW

HW — Sun, 14 Feb 2016 04:02:47 +0000

Marriage is not a human right.

By: clearasmud

clearasmud — Sun, 14 Feb 2016 01:24:54 +0000

It is clear that What the government is planning on doing is designed to allow they to not have to take a position. They are essentially saying that the two opposing groups and the chief justice’s ruling has forced their hand, but they could have appealed the courts ruling if they did not agree with it.

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

Keepin' it Real!...4Real! — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:46:51 +0000

I’d rather a judgment by 65,000 people than 40 people who’s faceing the public being ridiculously accused of bigotry because they are exercising their rights…also I don’t need to read Glen Fubler’s opinion piece because that’s just what it is,his opinion…you have one and so do I…

By: Cow Polly

Cow Polly — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:03:58 +0000

A referendum on SSM will not prevent two men holding hands walking or laying together in love on a beach now will it?

By: planeasday

planeasday — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:50:38 +0000

If he wasn’t already on a leash I would indeed explain but the outcome of this war on nature has determined since the OBA’s inception – most likely before if you can see past the puppets that is…

By: Build a Better Bermuda

Build a Better Bermuda — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 19:43:38 +0000

Actually, marriage under the law bestows certain rights, rights that come when as a couple you commit yourself to each other under the law. Currently the laws specifically discriminate against couples of same sex from being able to marry and obtain these rights. The Human Rights Act was specifically put into law to prevent any one group or individual from ever being able to prevent another group or individual from having access to the same rights and services as any other, irregardless of the majority will. Every argument that is being used to currently deny the same sex community the right to marry, are the same discriminatory arguments that were used over half a century ago, and the very reason the Human Rights Act was enacted. But please, try to break it down about why equality here isn’t valid.

By: Cup of tea anyone?

Cup of tea anyone? — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 19:34:48 +0000

Nature? There are endless examples of homosexuality in nature.
Jeez my people are dopey!
Bermuda is worse than i thought

By: Cup of tea anyone?

Cup of tea anyone? — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 19:28:19 +0000

“We need some stron men with b@lls”…..so you are FOR SSM then.
Welcome to the right side of history.

Toodles!

By: Lois Frederick

Lois Frederick — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:32:12 +0000

Now, try explaining that to the Chief Justice after February 29th. Your case will not hold water.

By: Raymond Ray

Raymond Ray — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:35:24 +0000

“It is my personal belief that a referendum is the way forward”
@ Build a Better Bermuda, whomever you may be I want you and others to understand that it’s my opinion… And we all know what they say opinion being like right?

By: planeasday

planeasday — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:32:12 +0000

You are confused – you have no Right as a gay couple to be married – it is a privilege – just as you have no right to pick a shell up off of the beach but it can be done because there is no duty expected of you not to pick it up…

If i had more time I would break it down for you…

By: planeasday

planeasday — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 13:43:59 +0000

Exactly – like two men or women being denied marriage is in the same league of abomination that slavery is…

Those who would seek to advance the gay agenda always refer topic, this human rights issue, as if it is a direct comparison…get it through your heads being denied marriage is no where near the plight slaves endured in history and at present!!

Men and Men and Women and Women have NO RIGHT TO MARRY – where on earth have you seen this written in any religion detailing our god given rights or any constitution detailing our rights as occupiers of our god given body?

You are all attempting to correlate these issues because YOU THINK IT IS YOUR RIGHT just as you think your lifestyle is natural…but unfortunately for you in the grand scheme of things you are all an aberration – nature itself proves it.

By: Lala

Lala — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 13:38:24 +0000

Delt with…

By: Lala

Lala — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 13:37:33 +0000

If the abolition of slavery in the US (and many other countries) had been put to referendum, it would never have happened.

I believe human rights issues should be felt with quickly and with as little red tape as possible. JUST GET IT DONE!!

By: ConcernedBermudian

ConcernedBermudian — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 13:28:33 +0000

A Referendum, will no happen. This would have to pass in the House and it won’t. There are plp members who will be compelled to vote in favour of civil unions and not or against for this red herring. If you need a sense of perspective on people’s rights, read Glen Fubler’s opinion piece on Bernews. Stop thinking that your personal insecurities and hang ups should dictate how others live.

By: Mike Hind

Mike Hind — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 12:35:38 +0000

Um… They’re already allowed to do these things?

Continuing the injustice of denying rights to Bermudians isn’t going to change the fact that gay folks are allowed to hold hands in public and lay on the beach together.

By: Cranberry

Cranberry — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:50:49 +0000

Some years ago I bet you said the same thing about marriage between races too. How did that work out for you??

By: Roger

Roger — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 05:53:33 +0000

MP Richards last week was asking who is speaking for the PLP.

12th February 2016, you put on the order paper a private members bill entitled ‘Same sex marriage referendum Act 2016″ then you withdraw your motion. On a TV interview you say it was a procedural glitch and here you say “after consultation with my Parliamentary colleagues, I decided to not lay the Bill today”.

So Mr Richards was it a PROCEDURAL GLITCH(HOA) vs RAPPED ON THE FINGERS by OBA.

We shall soon see.

By: Keeping pace

Keeping pace — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 04:58:03 +0000

When did being progressive include condoning unsocial behaviors?

By: Keeping pace

Keeping pace — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 04:53:07 +0000

Three comments –
1. Just because everyone else does something does not make it right.
2. MPs do not own their votes, it belongs to those who voted them in.
3. Why do we continually follow behind nations who make negative decisions which have deadly consequences for its people instead of engaging in positive communications with all parties so that we come up with solutions which brings peace and harmony?

OBA, you should have had government’s attorneys make an appeal on the judge’s ruling rather than placing hurried legislation in front of the MPs. Then you could have drafted truly thought provoked legislation which will foster harmony and peace. I cannot see this (or any of the other three hot buttons on the public’s minds of late) resulting in your party having an easy return as the government of Bermuda because of the constant mind set of your party that the majority of Bermudians are not smart enough to understand that you have no respect for the masses and have every intention of pushing personal and party agendas down the throats of Bermudians. I grew up in the 60s and the same political mentality was driving our community back then. You were elected to represent both those for SSM as well as those who wish to Preserve Marriage. Stop with the judge is making us do this and do what you were elected to do – REPRESENT THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED YOU!!!! Remember they do not owe you their vote.

By: Egalitarian

Egalitarian — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:00:44 +0000

“Who should decide and how?”

A great question and a hard one to answer.
First we have to agree that everybody should enjoy the same rights and legal benefits as everybody else.
If there are exceptions to that ideal then we need to understand how that is acceptable.
Emotional and politically driven responses hurt the discussion and make it impossible to resolve a painful issue.
We as a community have to decide … assuming we have a community … and honestly sometimes I wonder.

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

Keepin' it Real!...4Real! — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:40:54 +0000

Hahahaah. ..y’all pissed off now because they will let the people vote…by all means this is the only way to go…y’all want the govt. To decide so you can have someone to point the finger at but guess what…now YOU will be the deciding factor…contractual agreements will provide the RIGHTS y’all want…If it’s passes then you can thank the people not the govt…If it is declined then I will thank the people.

Oh and by the way, stop comparing this subject to the right to vote or some slave ship mentality crap that y’all bring up for any and every subject…now we will see the percentage of who is for this unnatural lifestyle…If the majority votes for or against this there is NO ONE to BLAME but us Bermujans!!! Finally the freedom to make decisions for ourselves instead of being dictated to…also I’m not interested in hypothetical situations…

TIRED of hearing politicans getting blamed…We the People…and so forth.

By: Legalgal

Legalgal — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:27:42 +0000

So you are happy to do drugs but hate love. Wow. If you don’t like gay people don’t marry a gay person. But your prejudice should not prevent a gay person marrying. Doesn’t matter what the mob think.

By: Legalgal

Legalgal — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:22:12 +0000

It has already been decided by adopting human rights. Or you have a referendum abolishing Human Rights?!

By: Build a Better Bermuda

Build a Better Bermuda — Sat, 13 Feb 2016 00:15:53 +0000

Individuals’ human rights must be protected, even in the face of the majority, this is why it should never be left to a referendum. The whole point of the Human Rights Act was to ensure that people rights could never be impeded again, even by the majority, as it had been over half a century ago. If we try put any type of supremacy over it, then we invalidate it on a whole and it will only serve to demonstrate we will have learned nothing from the mistakes of the past. The truth of it is that marriage equality will only impact those that will finally get it. For decades now there have been same sex couples raising families, successfully and unsuccessfully, just like hetrosexual couples.

By: bluwater

bluwater — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:13:54 +0000

“Richards is stating his personal view and being honest unlike some others that don’t want to say yes or no.”

No, a free vote on civil union in the House is being honest. He’s trying push the issue off to avoid the responsibility of upholding the law.

By: Sara Sargasso

Sara Sargasso — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:32:21 +0000

So who should decide, and how?

By: Acegurl

Acegurl — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:24:26 +0000

Referendum, this is a human rights issue? You are the government make the decision. Not all voters get what they want all of the time. This is 21st century. Please don’t make it like the gambling issue. Gambling is so passé in other developed destinations and this country is still debating it 25 years on. Just do it!

By: WHAT!!!!

WHAT!!!! — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:11:58 +0000

What B ach are you hanging out at? I never seen men perform these “They can do that now”

By: ConcernedBermudian

ConcernedBermudian — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:48:52 +0000

You seem to have forgotten about the court ruling and the Feb 29th deadline for govt. to comply.

By: ConcernedBermudian

ConcernedBermudian — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:46:49 +0000

This issue is undoubtably a hot potato, that most politicians from either side, would prefer not to handle. The govt. faced by court rulings and calls from those directly affected, has come up with a good compromise, after a consultation period, where anyone was able to make written submissions expressing opinions on the matter. The move to make civil unions legal, is a way of dealing with the matter in the most practical way right now. What real objection can anyone have to it? It does not alter traditional marriage yet offers same the legal rights to those who desire them. Whether the majority agree that equal rights for all people in society in a good thing, is neither here nor there. The courts have decided and are forcing the hand of the govt. to act and act by Feb 29th.

By: Egalitarian

Egalitarian — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:45:32 +0000

You can’t decide a human rights issue by popular vote!

It would be utterly unfair. Our society believes that everybody should enjoy the same rights and legal benefits as everybody else. Equality has to be universal and it has to apply to everyone, even the minority group.

A referendum says that the majority decides what your human rights will be, and that is CRAZY!

By: hmmm

hmmm — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:27:30 +0000

They can do that now, so why the resistance.

Although why you are staring at beachgoers in the first place is quite disturbing.

By: hmmm

hmmm — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:24:40 +0000

Sexist much !

By: Onion juice

Onion juice — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:22:57 +0000

They will not hold a Referendum because they know that the MOJORITY are not for this Bull S!@#.
They just make up Laws for their pleasure without getting a consensus from the populous and getting a concerted result, which is a part of Democracy.
But yet we get the opposite which is Border lining Dictatorship.
Mmmmmmmm

By: Onion juice

Onion juice — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:10:36 +0000

Mmmmmmn

By: Onion juice

Onion juice — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:08:24 +0000

You put it on the table and then you take it off. We need some strong men with B@lls.
A doubled minded man is unstable in ALL his ways.

By: Onion juice

Onion juice — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 21:04:57 +0000

I thought we live in a Democracy and a Referendom is synonymous to the meaning of Democracy.
Ya all Full of S!@# !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Wilson

Wilson — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:58:16 +0000

Richards is stating his personal view and being honest unlike some others that don’t want to say yes or no.

By: Bullseye

Bullseye — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:58:04 +0000

because there are none. You just can’t believe it so you create them. Tricksters see tricks everywhere.

By: Wilson

Wilson — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:55:40 +0000

You can have as many town hall meetings as you want OBA, it’s either yes or no when it comes down to the voters. People minds will not change. It’s my personal belief that I’m not ready to see 2 men holding hands walking or laying together in love on a beach towel at Horseshoe Bay.

Hold a referendum on this and decriminalizing marijuana in small amounts and stop wasting time and energy. Let the people vote on both topics since so many people on both sides say the numbers are on their side.

By: Beep Blip

Beep Blip — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:53:02 +0000

Amen. THey are being absolute ********* right now. wont do anything because they are scared close to next election. Civil Union is BS. equal rights for all = Marriage for all.

By: Spectator

Spectator — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:46:47 +0000

“Should this matter be decided by referendum? Can you imagine if the question of retaining segregation across Southern United States – which only affected 12% of the U.S. population – had been decided by referendum?” I refer Sylvan Richards and all commenters to the above statement from an opinion written by Glenn Fubler and published in Bernews on February 11. If you haven’t read it yet, it is worth your time.

By: ConcernedBermudian

ConcernedBermudian — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:40:31 +0000

What would his objection be to civil unions? What fair thinking individual would be against offering legal rights to those who presently are without? At least when it goes to the vote there are members within the plp that will be compelled to vote for civil unions. It will pass. Richards is going down the wrong path on this subject. I thought he was more open minded that this. I was wrong.

By: WOW

WOW — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:40:18 +0000

“Follow your conscience but always keep that door open.”
-Michael Dunkley.

RESONATE on that statement people.

By: jt

jt — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:36:42 +0000

You’ve completely missed the plot Duane. You and I disagree on SSM and that’s fine, but these guys are too smart for you, apparently.