Marriage Referendum & Matrimonial Causes Bills

March 10, 2016

According to the Bill tabled in the House, the referendum questions will be “are you in favour of same sex marriage in Bermuda?” and “are you in favour of same sex civil unions in Bermuda?”

Last month Premier Michael Dunkley announced that Government will table a Referendum Bill so “that the people of this Country can express their opinions on same-sex marriage and civil unions via a referendum.”

Video of the Premier announcing the plans to hold a referendum last month:

The Referendum [Same Sex Relationships] Act 2016 says, “Whereas it is expedient to provide for the holding of a referendum on whether or not marriage or civil union between two people of the same sex should be permitted in Bermuda.”

The Bill says, “A referendum shall be held on the following questions: 1. Are you in favour of same sex marriage in Bermuda? 2. Are you in favour of same sex civil unions in Bermuda?”

The Matrimonial Causes Amendment Act 2016 says, “Whereas it is expedient to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974 to confirm that marriage remains exclusively a relationship between a man and a woman.

The Bill’s Explanatory Memorandam says, “This Bill seeks to confirm that, notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1981, marriage remains exclusively a relationship between a man and a woman.

“Clause 2 amends section 15 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974 by inserting a new subsection [2] to confirm that subsection [1][c] [which provides that a marriage is void unless the parties are male and female] has effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Human Rights Act 1981.”

The Referendum [Same Sex Relationships] Act 2016 follows below [PDF here]:

The Matrimonial Causes Amendment 2016 follows below [PDF here]:

click here same sex marriage

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (103)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. “Where The Winds May Blow”

    • What a bunch of S!@# !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      That’s like saying, are we gonna call rum, alcohol or a strong drink

      • Mike Hind says:

        The only “S!@#” around here is the stuff you keep spreading.

      • @ Onion juice, I am in total agreement with you, but I will go further and say this will be a big waste of tax payers money, if you are going to bring forth a referendum on same sex marriage verses same sex unions,this is a bloody mess in the highest degree.

        If they are going to use tax payers money to debate just between same sex marriages and same sex union, it like asking those who oppose, to accept either or, and get over it because we are going to do this, as a government.

        my reply, is go ahead let them do what you want, because the fall out and the end result will go down in history against this government.

        • Think outside the Bible... says:

          Fallout? Allowing love and for people to live their lives as they decide will have fallout? Having their union recognized in the eyes of the law and being allowed the same rights and benefits as current married couples will cause backlash? That’s just about the most unintelligent thing I’ve ever heard. If your co-worker or neighbour married a same sex partner, how would that affect you? What fallout would you create as a result of something that doesn’t affect you in the least??

          • Mike Hind says:

            Any fallout would be the fault of those CAUSING the fallout, not the folks getting married.

  2. True Lies says:

    Bermuda is so backwards. The majority should never be allowed to decide the rights of minorities.

    • I heart 441 says:

      So the minority should be able to vote for the majority? smh

      • True Lies says:

        Rights should never be decided upon by a popular vote.

      • Robert says:

        No, the government should protect the rights of the minorities and enact laws which gives everyone equal treatment.

      • Mike Hind says:

        That’s a misrepresentation of the situation.

        This will not affect the majority in any way.
        This will ONLY affect the minority.

        Unless I’m wrong and you’d like to show how?

      • Build a Better Bermuda says:

        There is no issue of a minority deciding on the rights of a majority here, the majority.y already have the full rights under the law. This is about a majority deciding on the equal rights of a minority and that should never be allowed in a democracy, primary to a democracy’s establishment of a government of the people, the first principle of a democracy is the assurance of equality for all under the rule of law… and right now there is a minority who are being denied equality under the law, and it is being done by the law, which makes it in violation of the Human Rights Act

    • @ True Lies, that what Democracy is SUPPOSED to be about.
      The last place that had minorities deciding over the majority was South Africa ( Actually they still are) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Mmmmmmmmmm

      • Just the Tip says:

        when it comes to rights, the majority should not say what right the minorities have.

      • Anbu says:

        As usual its all about black and white with u. Lmao sour grapes much. Whether u like it or not they will be allowed to be legally bound to each other and have every benefit that goes with it. I hope they win marraige through the vote just to stick it to you lot even harder!! Lmao pun intended

      • Mike Hind says:

        You seriously have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?

        • LOL (Original TM) says:

          Neither do you. You have already been discredited. You know still waiting for factual information from you like the link to the whole story that you seem to be the only one that knows the details for the guy being prosecuted for trespassing at his son’s school of his objection to gay material being given to his son. At least I provide a link to the story, you did not.

          LOL truth and facts please..

          • Mike Hind says:

            That link was given. Why are you spreading lies?

            The story you are speaking about was very different from what you portrayed and a link explaining this was posted.

            However, even if it wasn’t, your point is untrue. Not posting a link debunking ONE of the stories you’ve been told to post in an attempt to make a point – what that point is, I don’t know. That somehow you guys now think that discrimination is bad? That can’t be true, as you still support it. What the story about a guy who decided to go down to the school and then illegally refused to leave because he didn’t think ANY kids should be taught the curriculum… At the school he willingly sends his kids to, has to do with marriage equality, I don’t know.

            But you keep on trying to distract from the main topic. It’s obvious why you’re doing it,

            You don’t have an actual, real reason not to change the law, so you evade and move goalposts and change the conversation so you don’t have to answer – and then honestly defend that answer – one simple question: why?

            Maybe when you gain the courage of convictions and actually do that, you might have a leg to stand on when it comes to integrity. Until you do, your claim to “truth and facts” is just yet another lie you’re trying to spread.

    • Vote with me , NO, and No

      • Mike Hind says:

        Why? You never seem to have an answer to that…

      • Flattsboy says:

        This is so wrong and is making Bermuda look backward on a global scale.

        If you don’t agree with me here is an example;

        Imagine I am white and you are black, now imagine I pass a law saying that only White Bermudian’s can marry other White Bermudians and Black Bermudians can only marry Black Bermudians.

        If you are interracial Bermudian couple you can’t get married and don’t have the rights that married Bermudians of the same race do. I believe this because the bible commanded the Israelites not to engage in interracial marriage (Deuteronomy 7:3–4 and I use this for the basis of my dislike against interracial marriage and relationships.

        That’s what people used to argue ,See how awful,racist, backward and wrong that sounds now ? Could you imagine that going over well in Bermuda ? well if you oppose gay marriage, you are making the same argument just replacing race with sex.

        • HW says:

          Poor comparison. Race is irrelevant for any legitimate purpose of marriage, but the sex of the parties is not irrelevant.

          Laws forbidding interracial marriage were designed to keep the races apart, while marriage is about bringing men and women together for the betterment of society.

          • Mike Hind says:

            not that you’ll answer, but…

            How is the sex of the people involved relevant in any way?

            And where does it say that marriage is for the betterment of society?
            Where does it legally say that bettering society is a stipulation for marriage?

            Or is this just another “you have to be able to have kids in order to get married” false argument?

            Why do you keep spreading these lies?

  3. Lucky 7 says:

    So why don’t do the same for pathways to status? Listen to the people . Is all about human rights right???

    • Prove that its a human right.
      Right:- morally good, justified, or acceptable.
      Court is in session.
      Mmmmmmmmm

      • Sarcastaball says:

        Speaking of court…Read the Obergefell vs. Hodges decision by the US Supreme Court. They’ve ruled on it already.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Equal access to rights is a human right.

        But you don’t care about truth, do you?
        Just pushing your ridiculous, false, hateful agenda of discrimination.

        • LOL (Original TM) says:

          by this logic I want the right to vote in Canada and the USA. How bout it…………………………

          LOL

          • Just the Tip says:

            Um not unless you’re Canadian or American but you know that already and this is just distraction from the topic

          • blankman says:

            If you want to vote in Canada all you have to do is live there for three years (actually three out of five) and then you can apply for citizenship.

          • Mike Hind says:

            My point stands. You don’t care about truth. Just pushing this false, hateful agenda of discrimination.

    • The Original Truth™ says:

      Isn’t so crystal that OBA will push through whatever suites their agenda. For the casino referendum it was too expensive so they just had to push it through without. They know what the result would be if they had a referendum on casinos, pathways and SSM They know the results for SSM will be in their favor so they let it happen this way. They are doing a pontius pilate so they will maintain the SSM supporter’s vote by being perceived as if they tried. Our premier most likely has the same view of SSM as he does of cannabis legalization.

  4. Cow Polly says:

    That is not a good set of questions. More suitable would have been:-

    Are you in favour of Same Sex Marriage?

    If NOT, are you in favour of same civil sex unions?

    I am in favour of SSM so what do I put down for the second question? If I put no, my LGBT friends may lose out on some sort of recognition be it second rate but if I put yes, that waters down my preference and my friends may lose out on their full human right.

    • Its me again says:

      Like.

      For some reason Bernews isnt letting me like anything. Probably my web browser

    • What?? says:

      You hit the nail squarely on the head. These referendum questions are clearly designed to give the Government exactly what it wants. Even if a majority vote in favour of same-sex marriage it is axiomatic that a larger majority will vote in favour of civil unions. The Government will then use that “larger” majority as an excuse to proceed with the path they have already selected. The referendum is an expensive joke.

    • Nightlilly says:

      I was wondering the same thing. I don’t want to put YES and then NO and risk coming out with absolutely nothing to show for it.

      I am not in support of SAME SEX Civil Unions in lieu of Marriage Equality. I am in favour of Civil Unions being the default marriage type for all people who wish to marry in Bermuda and then those who wish to have a Religious Union can also choose to do so.

  5. Just the Tip says:

    So my question for the chickens on the hill, what happens if there is a majority ‘ No ‘ to both questions? you’re still going to have to push one of them through the house.

    • Not so, if I vote NO and NO

      • Just the Tip says:

        Actual it is so beacuse it would go against the EHRC rulings and leave the Government open to lawsuits.

      • The Original Truth™ says:

        What’s wrong rodney I didn’t think you’d have something against bakla? I think you just need to accept this way of life if you are going to accept the change of culture coming after OBA’s new pathways.

      • Mike Hind says:

        But why?

    • Eh? says:

      I assume you mean “through the court”..

      Perhaps that’s why this is going to referendum.. think about it.

      • Just the Tip says:

        No I meant through the house, but if they want to leave it to the courts I’m fine with that too

  6. lalalalala says:

    The Matrimonial Causes Amendment 2016 is in itself in contravention of the Human Rights Act.. I can see this on being thrown out in the courts… Waste of time an money once again!!

    • Just the Tip says:

      I agree also if the referendum come back no and they don’t do any other legislation then does it make this Causes a bit redundant?

      what would be interesting to get a legal view on is the separate registrar list they are proposing if everything does go ahead.

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      Exactly, how is it legal to put a clause into an act to exempt it from the Human Rights Act to allow discrimination to occur, when the sole purpose of the Human Rights Act is to prevent discrimination and has primacy over all other Acts on this matter. I see this as being topedoed in the courts, and rightly it should.
      I see the referendum as doubly pointless, because if the majority vote for Same Sex Marriage, they will have to drop the Matrimonial amendment and if there is a vote against, the results will ultimately get torpedoed anyway in any court action on the contravention against the Human Rights Act by the Matrimonial Act, both as it stands now and with the amendment.
      There is enough information and consensus out there by the scientific community to completely debunk any nation that Same Sex Marriage is a threat to society and our children, so the ONLY motivation for anybody to stand against Same Sex Marriage is out of purely religious and personal belief… and that is a violation of the Human Rights Act. Just allow it now, furthering social equality will only better us in the long run.

    • blankman says:

      I have to agree – I can’t see how that amendment to the Matrimonial Clauses Act can possibly stand up in court.

  7. Takbir Karriem Sharrieff says:

    Democracy means that the majority always decide the rights of the Majority.Demos-means the people-cracy means the rulership.I prefer a Theocracy like Al-Islam which means.G-D Rules.Theos,latin word for G-D,-cracy means the rulership.The Holy Quran sets out all the rules and we abide by that.No ifs ands,and buts, about it.Guess thats too much for majority,of those who go astray ,infidels,hypocrites,devils,disbelievers,and others.So race towards the hellfire with Shaitain in the lead.Hell is an evil abode and hot all year round.

    • Family Man says:

      What does the Quran say about driving cars? how old do you have to be?
      What does the Quran say about multiple wives?
      What does the Quran say about using the internet?
      What does the Quran say about vaccination programs?
      What does the Quran say about organ transplants?

      Thankfully the rest of us don’t have to live under such backward ideas as espoused by islam.

      • Read says:

        @Family Man, I encourage you to read the quran and seek out the answers. You will find that it is comprehensive and a guidance for all situations, even those that did not exist when it was reveals (i.e. cars, vaccines, internet, etc).

        The quran instructs on giving rights to children, women and people in general (i.e limiting the number of wives to 4, inheritance for children, treating people who have reached puberty as adults, etc)

        Please don’t confuse cultural practices a religion. And remember the quran came to mankind as a mercy, similar to the scriptures Jesus and Moses (peace be upon them) shared with their communities.

      • Nightlilly says:

        Does it matter what the Quran has to say when his god is just as real as Xenu or Thor?

    • lalalalala says:

      Takbir Karriem Sharrieff… Your correct that is one definition of democracy..

      However Democracy is also defined as; the belief in freedom and equality between people.

    • lalalalala says:

      The Holy Quran and Holy Bible also lay out a whole bunch of rules that even the staunchest of followers ignore, hey just pick and choose what suits their needs… should we now start stoning people?

    • Dusty says:

      You’re in the wrong place then buddy- I do hear the Middle East is nice this time of the year…

      Fortunately for the rest of us the Western world is not (and will never again be) ruled theocratically :)

      • Hmmm says:

        Dust… Ruled No, the Problem is that the separation of Church and State is slow to take effect in Bermuda. Both parties are influenced by the cloth…. A cloth that should be left at the door!!

    • serengeti says:

      Let’s face it. The Quran is an book of fiction that encourages extreme violence among its followers. Islam is the biggest threat to peace, democracy and freedom in the world, by far. Even your post is laced with threats of violence.

    • Fdsial says:

      I guess Islam also forbids using the space bar lol

    • M.C. Beauchamp says:

      These geriatric ramblings give the word ‘stupidity’ new meaning.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Would you be as supportive of a theocracy that doesn’t allow your religion?

      And, I know I’ve asked again, but you’ve refused to answer in the past…

      Do you think that everyone should have to follow the rules of your religion?
      If so, would you be ok with other people saying the same to you? That you should have to follow the rules of their religion?
      If not, why is it ok to do the same here?

  8. I heart 441 says:

    I’m going to go register to vote so I can say “NO” to both questions.

    I accept Likes & dislikes

    For those that dislike, I bet a high percentage of you, are expats.

    How would you feel if a Bermudian relocated to your country of birth and resided there and petitioned to change the way of life in your home country?

    • Cow Polly says:

      I am Bermudian and I’m petitioning to change the way of life in my own country. Sorry pal, but this isn’t about black or white, Bermudian or expat. This is about human rights for all.

      You don’t have to adopt their way of life or even like their way of life, but please don’t deny them their rights to live their life. They will not harm you anyway or change the way you live. Gays have been in our Society for generations and there is no reason to believe that suddenly they will rise up and force ‘gaydom’ on any of us. And if you believe the crap about protecting children please understand that if you are opposed to that idea, then you should petition the adoption agencies not prevent tax paying men and women from receiving their rights.

      • I heart 441 says:

        In some States in the US, its illegal to quote scriptures from the bible in classrooms at school, it some parts of the UK its illegal to do similar situations. How did this come about, migration of foreigners who petitioned for change after they became citizens. Some sad situation is happening here in Bermuda. For the record, I lived outside of Bermuda for more then 10 years, so don’t say I need to go out and experience the world outside of BDA.

        • Mike Hind says:

          In public schools, it’s not allowed because there is a separation of church and state and the government isn’t allowed to promote one religion over another.

          Isn’t that how it should be?

          What could possibly be the problem with that?

        • blankman says:

          heart 441, sorry to disappoint you but the restrictions on quoting scripture in the classroom in the US apply to all states and have nothing to do with “foreigners” and everything to do with the US Constitution (the First Amendment actually). Those restrictions apply everywhere.

        • Nightlilly says:

          You do know that the US has the separation of church and state so it is always illegal in all public spaces (schools, buildings, governments etc) to quote scriptures.

          In fact, “under God” wasn’t even added to their pledge of allegiance until 1954 when a bunch of people got together and petitioned to change it and take it away from it’s origins and roots (must have been a bunch of foreigners!). They didn’t add “In God we trust” until 1957 to their money. So really this whole bible thumping phenomenon is pretty new in the history of their country and these movements away from scripture is really just the United States moving back to their roots.

          —-

          As the UK has no single written constitution, there is no explicit constitutional principle of freedom of religious exercise as there is in other countries, such as Germany and the United States.

    • Dusty says:

      … except expats couldn’t vote in a referendum in the first place

    • Duh says:

      I’m a bermudian. I disliked. These people have been here for a minimum of 15 years… I’m sure their way of life is not that different than yours…

    • Mike Hind says:

      I’m Bermudian. Born and raised.

      And I have a question.

      How will allowing people to get married change your way of life in any way?

      I await your reply.

      • Bumbye says:

        The answer to your question is the same answer to the question; how will being allowed to get married change the lives of homosexuals?

        Be more forthcoming about why you want to get married. You want to teach our children that this is OK. You want to teach them this in the schools. We have already seen how it works in other places so you aren’t fooling us.

        • Just the Tip says:

          your rights don’t change, i gain more rights when there is marriage equality.

          I gain the right to put my husband on my insurance
          I gain the right to to make medical choices for my husband if he is unable
          I gain the right to widowers pension
          I gain the right to ‘inherit/give’ property with out a will (although a will is still a good idea)
          I gain tax breaks for being with my spouse

          i gain all the rights that an opposite couple get when married.
          What do you lose except an excuse to discriminate against me?

        • blankman says:

          Bumbye, you say that “We have already seen how it works in other places”. Please, tell us what we’ve seen and how it’s had a negative effect on society. When I look at countries that allow same-sex marriage I don’t see anything negative. So please tell us what you see that the rest of us have missed.

        • Nightlilly says:

          Getting married changes the nature of your relationship and it changes how other perceive your relationship.

          Your neighbour getting married doesn’t change anything about your relationship or how it is perceived – it literally has no effect on your life what so ever…

          Other than maybe you get invited to the wedding and now you have to buy them a gift and ugh what if they don’t have a registry? But you don’t know them that well so you don’t want to get them something too expensive and is it tacky to just give money? You don’t really even want to go because you’ve gained a bit of weight so that means you have to go out and buy a new outfit and this wedding is already getting too expensive because they’re just your neighbours and like you said you really don’t know them all that well anyway and will they even miss you if you don’t go? But would that be rude because they did invite you…do they like you more than you like them? I mean you did lend them your lawn mower that one time and they did bake you that cake when you moved in…I guess you should go…maybe it will be fun…it is an open bar…ok awesome you’re going.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Did you really not know that this is about rights?
          Do you not get that marriage grants a whole bunch of rights to the couple getting married and that same sex couples are denied access to those rights?

          That’s how it will change their lives, it will give them equal access to a whole bunch of rights that the rest of us enjoy.

          Now. I’ve answered your question, which proves your proposition – that it’s the same question, which it obviously isn’t – how will allowing gay folks equal access to rights change your way of life in any way?

          Your scenario below has nothing to do with it, as it’s a hypothesis that has nothing to do with marriage equality.
          Your spouse leaving you and marrying somebody else, then leaving the country with your kids is messed up, regardless, not just because they realized they’re gay.

          Any other actual ways it’ll change your life?

          Or can we dismiss this false argument entirely?

      • Bumbye says:

        Scenario:
        I have a child with my husband and then our marriage breaks down and he decides to live and marry as a gay man then he could be given custody of my children to live in a ********
        That would be a massive and unjust change to my “way of life” not to mention the constant demands that we teach gay values in schools. Look how you are beating your gay drums now, you’ll do the same for the right to gay sex education and values in schools. Hell no!

        • blankman says:

          What on earth are “gay values”?

          Or are you just upset that schools might teach kids that it’s not okay to bully kids just because they’re gay?

        • Nightlilly says:

          If your husband was given full custody of your children after your divorce, regardless of his sexual orientation, this would show just how unfit you would be as a mother…don’t you think?

          Courts tend to favour mothers for primary custody and they also tend to lean towards joint custody over primary custody for the father – which would mean that you would have to just be a terrible mother and a terrible person who is putting your child at great risk by having them in your custody and control.

          So yeah, I would be very pleased with the courts for awarding your husband custody in that case.

          ————–

          Now, “gay sex education” is really just Sex Education. All of the things that homosexual couples do heterosexual couples do (I hope).

          Both men and women need to use protection to prevent the transmission of STIs and HIV/AIDS

          Sex Education isn’t just about protecting against pregnancy and disease – it is also about teaching about emotional health, body autonomy, correct vocabulary, and consent.

          ———

          And I assume by “gay values” you mean Human Rights which I really hope they are teaching children in schools.

        • Mike Hind says:

          The scenario you present has nothing to do with gay marriage… Yet it speaks to why it’s so important that we do teach tolerance as a society, if your husband had been accepted and loved for who he is and not forced into the closet by the lack of acceptance you espouse, he wouldn’t have thought that who he is is wrong and that he had to pretend to be something he’s not and th whole situation would have been alleviated from front.

          And “gay sex education” isn’t a thing. Hopefully, they’re already teaching safety! Aren’t they?

          And “gay values” are the same as the values of the rest of us. To live our lives in peace.

    • Bermudian says:

      Your an idiot.

    • Nightlilly says:

      Bermudian here: I support Marriage Equality and Human Rights.

    • Think outside the Bible... says:

      Oh look, another unintelligent comment! So quick to jump to the “hot topic issue” as a place to lay blame! Most people on my Facebook account who are in support of this human rights change and allowing gay marriage are BERMUDIAN! If the “pathways to status” debate wasn’t so prevalent I have a feeling you’d replace the word “expats” with the word “white” or “rich” in your uneducated comment, because someone needs to be blamed for change, and heaven forbid it’s because society is changing with the times but you’re too small-minded to do the same

  9. 235 says:

    This is why people complain that the OBA can’t listen. Over 9000 persons sign a petition to prohibit this sinful behavior becoming law and they come up with two questions for a referendum that doesn’t give the majority option. MOST BERMUDIANS (based on those that were passionate enough to publicly campaign against the issue) are NOT in favor of SSM nor Civil Unions (which lead to SSM). Even the “other” community acknowledge that CU will eventually evolve to SSM. This Government is so dishonest.

    • Just the Tip says:

      Were those 9000 signatures verified? cause as i recall there were alot of people who used fake names to throw the couldn’t out as proof theere wasn no proper checks in place.

    • 14SH says:

      So 9000 is the majority now? Um nope. And doing nothing was never an option. The government are legally obliged to afford equal human rights to all. Bermudians will (in my opinion unnecessarily) get a chance to determine how that is done.

    • Mike Hind says:

      9000 is a majority in a community of over 60,000?
      Since when?

      Here’s a question, “235″…

      Why SHOULDN’T we make it legal? Do you have a reason that same sex couples shouldn’t legally be married?
      Can you defend that reason?

    • blankman says:

      235, no idea how you claim that this has anything to do with “prohibiting this sinful behaviour”. This is not about “behaviour”. It’s about about gay marriage, not gay sex. Regardless of the outcome, this isn’t going to have any impact on the latter.

      As for something being “sinful” are you suggesting that the rules in some ancient book should apply to everyone?

      But back to the fundamental question that no-one has answered as of yet. Please provide one valid reason to oppose same-sex marriage.

  10. Edward Cattell says:

    How is this referendum going to be carried out, people who are allowed to vote as per the election roll, what percentage of the roll have to vote 10% – 60% then what % in favor or against , just a thought and question any coments

    • Just the Tip says:

      think it would be like the last referendum, have to have 65% of the voters come vote and has to be over 50% for it to be decided.

      • What?? says:

        No. It’s a 50/50 vote. 50% vote carries the question and a 50% turn out validates the referendum.

        • Just the Tip says:

          I was wrong, double checking on wiki it was;

          ‘On 25 March 1995, the House of Assembly of Bermuda narrowly passed the Independence Referendum Bill 20–18,[2] the Senate passed the Bill unopposed two weeks later.[3] For independence to be approved, the yes vote had to be supported by at least 40% of those eligible to vote and over 50% of those who voted.[4]‘

  11. Will says:

    Jeez why not just put are you in favour of marijuana reform ie legalisation or decrim. already spending the money on the referendum just put a few more questions on there and kill two birds with one stone!

  12. Mike Hind says:

    Does anyone have a reason they’re willing to discuss and defend as to why we shouldn’t make SSM legal?

  13. Hannah Collins says:

    A referendum is an inappropriate method for making human rights decisions that impact a small minority of Bermuda’s population.

    • HW says:

      The European Court of Human Rights would disagree with you. They have said that this is a perfectly acceptable method to test the prevailing community interest before making any legislative changes.

      • Mike Hind says:

        Link, please?

        And, any chance of you actually offering a defensible argument against making same sex marriage legal?

  14. Pastor Syl says:

    This doesn’t make any kind of sense. How can you have a referendum on marriage equality on the one hand and put forward a bill that makes that referendum totally redundant on the other?!? What happens to the bill if people decide they want marriage equality?

    • What?? says:

      Not to worry. The referendum questions are designed to solicit the only answers they will accept. Either it will be altogether NO, in which case they will proceed with the “notwithstanding” clause in the Matrimonial Causes Act or YES and they will proceed with the Civil Union Act. The question regarding same sex marriage is a complete red herring. Even if a majority vote in favour of same-sex marriage it is axiomatic that a larger majority will vote in favour of civil unions. There never was any intent to allow same-sex marriage to be a real option.

  15. St. George's Resident says:

    I’m pretty sure this money would be better spent fixing the infrastructure of the island

  16. Jen says:

    I’m not in favour of any. No to both as these they are against God.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Your personal choice of religions is YOUR personal choice.

      It shouldn’t affect anyone else’s life in any way.

      So, having said that, why should these being “against God”, in your personal choice of religions, have any effect on anyone else’s life?

  17. Mike Hind says:

    And here we have it. Same pattern as always.
    These bigoted anti-equality folks show up, post lies and nonsense, then disappear, refusing outright to defend their arguments in the most cowardly way.

    How can we have an honest conversation about this topic when one side refuses to engage in any way? How can we debate this when one side refuses to post a defensible position in this?

    We’ve never seen a single argument that stands up to the slightest scrutiny, yet we’re supposed to take them seriously?
    We’re supposed to listen to what they have to say when they say nothing?

    How is this fair?