Voter Registration Deadline Is At 5.00pm Today

May 18, 2016

With the Referendum approaching, voters who wish to register for the first time or make changes to their existing registration details will have to do so by 5.00pm today [May 18].

The Referendum will be held on June 23, 2016, and the 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?”

For this referendum the 36 constituencies will be broken into 12 regions, with each region containing 3 constituencies.

Referendum fact sheet from, click to enlarge:


A Parliamentary Registry spokesperson previously said, “The Parliamentary Registrar advises the public that, the Premier has issued a Notice of Referendum on Same Sex Relationships to take place on 23 June 2016.

“Registration for voters who are registering for the first time or making changes to their existing registration details, will close on May 18, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.

“Registration is available online at or at the Parliamentary Registration office in Craig Appin house 3rd floor, #8 Wesley Street in the City of Hamilton.

“We encourage all voters to check their registration details and get polling station information on our website during this period.”

click here same sex marriage

Read More About

Category: All, News, Politics

Comments (69)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. o-o says:

    What if you don’t agree with any of the choices,is there a “none of the above” box?

  2. Some people.. says:

    Listening to the radio yesterday and some lady was going on about this like it would be the end of the world. She was very heated and suggested that the majority of bermudians didn’t support this..but it makes you wonder why some people hate everyone so much. Why would she want to keep a minority in the shadows? Why wouldn’t she want a minority to have equal rights? The majority of bermudians didn’t want slavery to end so should we make an attempt to reinstate that? Wouldn’t think so, so why is it some bermudians want to act like a bunch of hypocrites?

    • Its me again says:

      If you think you can compare slavery to the homosexual rights movement you must be losing your effing mind.

      • Full Fuulish says:

        @ Its me again- Hear Hear

        • serengeti says:

          As long as you’re ok, to hell with everyone else.

          • Full Fuulish says:

            I support same sex marriage! Seems like a given that consenting adults can marry who they want. I don’t however support or agree the comparison that was made! I don’t feel such atrocities of mankind should ever be held to comparison!!

      • PBanks says:

        Group ostracized by the public? Check.
        Group denied access to various rights held by other groups? Check.

        It may not be identical situation, but it’s quite similar in many regards. Why deny it?

        • Its me again says:

          Group taken against their will
          No check

          Group forced into labour
          No check

          Group raped and tortured
          No check

          Group put into “human zoos”
          No check

          Group not having the right to vote
          No check

          Only an idiot would compare slavery to SSM movement

          • PBanks says:

            Agreed on your checklist, but it doesn’t make people idiots for making a comparison based on *similarities*.

          • Mike Hind says:

            So, it has to be EXACTLY the same in order for there to be comparisons?

            I’m not sure you understand how comparisons work…

          • JohnT says:

            If we’re playing that game how about
            Taken against their will and gassed
            Taken against their will and imprisoned Taken against their will and chemically castrated.

            People in this world have a poor record of treating others who are different from them badly.

            In my eyes there is no difference between hating someone because they are black or hating someone because they are gay.

      • David R. says:

        Given the context of the comment I don’t believe a comparison was being made. All that was said was that at a certain point in history a position, that slavery is good, was held by the majority of persons and therefore continued.

        I believe the comparison being made is that this is a point in history when a position is being held by a majority which creates an environment which is unjust for a minority.

      • What?? says:

        You can compare one struggle for justice with another struggle for justice. If it’s a matter of degree for you how about we compare the struggle for legalizing interracial marriage (the majority were against that at the time) with same-sex marriage. Does that help?

        • Its me again says:

          No it doesn’t help.

          The poster said “the majority didn’t want slavery ended so we should reinstate it?”

          They mean slavery not interacial marriage and even then a ban on interracial marriage was not a universal concept like slavery. Bermuda may not have had a ban on interacial marriage.

          SSM may be a right and that’s none debatable however it cannot be compared in no way to the fight to end slavery or the civil rights movement

          • Mike Hind says:

            What’s not debatable is the fact that people are being denied equal access to rights and privileges and there has been no reason given for this denial.

            Bicker over semantics all you want. That fact is the only salient point.

            This denial is wrong. Period.

  3. Loveislove says:

    Simple question to all those opposed to Civil Unions is why would you deny a family member the rights, dignity and security that a civil union would afford them?

    While it may not be something you personally believe in should your family member be denied same/ similar rights that you are afforded? Would it be wrong to allow your family member access to their partner if they are in hospital (Next of kin rights)?

    Vote yes, yes because it is the human thing to do and not because it will have any impact on your life whatsoever. It will have a tremendous outcome for those, including any family members you may have that are not heterosexual, you vote for.

    • Jus' Wonderin' says:

      no and no for me…sorry

      • Mike Hind says:

        But you’re not REALLY sorry, are you?

        • Jus' Wonderin' says:

          nope, not really. could care less actually. sorry

          • PBanks says:

            Does that mean you’ll abstain? Or just vote ‘no, no’ because you don’t really care either way?

            • Jus' Wonderin' says:

              that’s a big no and no…

              • PBanks says:

                Sorry I did misread your earlier statement. The ‘care less’ bit had to do with the ‘really sorry’ question posed to you earlier, not the actual referendum question. My bad.

          • Mike Hind says:

            So you’re a liar AND a bigot.

            Got it.

            • Jus' Wonderin' says:

              Neither of those just choosing to exercise my freedoms…get over it!

              • Mike Hind says:

                Not even a little bit close to what we’re talking about. Funny how you mention freedoms when you support the denial of freedoms to others.

                But I guess your opinion matters in other people’s lives…

  4. J says:

    The website does not work.

    • Family Man says:

      Website works fine. Operator software may be damaged.

  5. Robbie Butters says:

    I am so excited to vote for my right to marry who I want!

  6. the truth will set you free says:

    The 10 Point Plan of Alice Bailey and the New World Order:

    Point 5: Make Homosexuality an Alternative Lifestyle
    Alice Bailey preached (50 yrs ago) that sexual enjoyment is the highest pleasure in humanity, no one must be denied and no one must be restricted how to enjoy themselves. People should be allowed in which ever way they chose they want, whether it is homosexuality or in incest or bestiality, as long as the two agree.

    A law was passed in our nation, South Africa. Parliament has passed it on 26/01/2000 and the President gave it his signature on 4/02/2000 – giving so much freedom to gay rights, that a time will come when it is illegal for a preacher to mention homosexuality as an abomination in the eyes of God, or to read scriptures publicly that talk about homosexuality. In Mozambique 1994, an agenda was drawn targeting to fill the police force, the judicial system (judges), the education system and everywhere else with gays, so that when a case comes up, they are there to defend the cause. Today the church is expected to marry gays/lesbians.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Links to any sort of evidence to these claims?

      Not to the story you’re copying and pasting from, links to actual evidence for the claims?

      • the truth will set you free says:

        These are the words from Alice Bailey’s own mouth a European surprise, surprise but you and others will deny it because it goes against the perverted and abnormal lifestyle you want to promote.The New World Order’s main purpose is depopulation: 1. War: Henry Kissinger “Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. And the bloodthirsty USA has been at war since forever.

        Abortion: Alice Bailey: If Sex is Free, Then Make Abortion Legal And Make It Easy

        She said; Build clinics for abortion – Health clinics in schools. If people are going to enjoy the joy of sexual relationships, they need to be free of unnecessary fears, in other words they should not be hampered with unwanted pregnancies.

        ‘Abortion as told by Christians is oppressive and denies our rights, we have a right to choose whether we want to have a child or not. If a woman does not want the pregnancy, she should have the freedom to get rid of that pregnancy painless and as easy as possible’. Today it is not only accessible, it is forced. Today abortion is a strategy to curb population control together with the use of condoms and ‘pill’.

        Homosexuality see previous comments. And this is there strategy: Today the strategy almost in its entirety has been adopted by the United Nations and today a lot of it is already law in many nations. This deception has crept up unobserved on so many people. It can best be demonstrated through the well-known analogy of the frog in the pot of water. If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it is smart enough to know that it is in terrible danger and will immediately jump out to safety. But if you turn up the heat very slowly, a little at a time, it doesn’t notice the changes that are taking place and will slowly cook to death. Many people today are slowly cooking to death and don’t seem to realize how far they have come from where they once were.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Yeah. Alice Bailey, who no one has heard of and died almost 70 years ago!

          This is all unsubstantiated conspiracy theory nonsense.

          I notice you also didn’t actually give any links to evidence to back up your claims.

          Odd that.

          I mean, you make these bizarre claims, yet don’t back them up…

          “Today [abortion] is not only accessible, it is forced.”
          This is fear mongering nonsense. Who is forcing women to get abortions on a global scale?
          Who is societally forcing women to get abortions?

          Then you talk about this nebulous strategy, but don’t actually explain what that strategy is.
          You say “see previous comments”, but the only previous comments are about it being perverted and abnormal, the former is a personal opinion, not a fact and the latter is easily debunked and has nothing to do with marriage equality.

          And that’s what we’re talking about here. Granting equal access to the rights and privileges to citizens of this country.
          That’s it.

          You’re railing against homosexuality itself and let me tell you, you lost that fight.
          It’s legal. No one is getting arrested or castrated or executed for being gay any more, except in places where folks spreading the same hate-filled message of misinformation and baseless lies have won over the population.

          So, I ask again…

          Do you have ANY evidence of these claims? Any links to evidence?

          “Alice Bailey said…” isn’t evidence.

          Or are you just interested in spreading this vile hate?

      • the truth will set you free says:

        Mike Hind the evidence is the things that have been mentioned in The 10 Point Plan have actually taken place. That is like someone telling you the sky is blue when it is actually blue and someone saying no it is not it’s grey.

        • Mike Hind says:

          Still nothing from you. No links. Nothing.

          This is just hateful fearmongering.

          And not a single argument against marriage equality.

  7. the truth will set you free says:

    The 10 Point Plan of Alice Bailey and the New World Order

    Point 10: Get Governments To Make All These Law and Get The Church To Endorse These Changes
    Alice Bailey wrote that the church must change its doctrine and accommodate the people by accepting these things and put them into its structures and systems.

    Have they succeeded?

    Today you wonder why our governments are legislating laws contrary to the Bible and why the church is compromising the Word of God. It is a process of implementing Thee Plan – A 50 year strategy of the New Age Movement to fulfill its ultimate goal to establish a One World Government, a One World Economic system and a One World Religion. Today the strategy almost in its entirety has been adopted by the United Nations and today a lot of it is already law in many nations. This deception has crept up unobserved on so many people. It can best be demonstrated through the well-known analogy of the frog in the pot of water. If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it is smart enough to know that it is in terrible danger and will immediately jump out to safety. But if you turn up the heat very slowly, a little at a time, it doesn’t notice the changes that are taking place and will slowly cook to death. Many people today are slowly cooking to death and don’t seem to realize how far they have come from where they once were.

    Today the Western World is not struggling to resist these because the New Age Movement focused primarily on the West because that was the Christian world in the 19th century. The New Age Movement has a school called the Akanni School, which is the school of all the leaders of the Western world. They subscribe to it. It is recorded that they say they have succeeded the task in the West but suddenly they realize Christianity has migrated to the rest of the world, so they have now to use every resource in the West to deal with the rest of the world. In Africa, South Africa is the number one state, it is changing at such a rapid speed. They are saying give to African States a financial package with conditions to:

    v Legalize abortion

    v Take God and prayer out of school

    Governments are so attracted to this package, they can’t say no to it, they need the money, they ask the church to find an answer. These are done secretly. Christianity is 5%, the rest is Hinduism, Buddhism, Spiritism. New Age is being taught to teachers, they are being taught to teach this in schools.

    It is interesting to note that Blavatsky, Besant and Alice Bailey were well known Masonic leaders of the day. Albert Pike referred to Freemasonry as the ‘custodian’ or special guardian of these occult secrets and revealed the hidden agenda of his institution, the forming of a Luciferic One World Government.

    Stay woke these people have been strategizing for a very long time. And they are dressing it up as human rights and equal rights to make it acceptable. Also Google The Gay Playbook And How It Is Overhauling America (and now Bermuda). This lifestyle is being promoted by Europeans and Euro-Americans, since our ancestors were dragged from Africa can you name me one time in history that any policies they have implemented that have been beneficial to us as a people. I will patiently wait and I will be ready for your responses.

    • PBanks says:

      This Alice Bailey seemed like a pretty scary individual, based on a precursory google search. But, has say Mozambique post-1994 now been filled up with gay judges/police officers that encourage/tolerate the ‘gay agenda’ or whatever the buzzword is these days?

    • Mike Hind says:

      None of this is real.

      • In this case Mike says:

        You are being willfully ignorant. There is volumes of books written by the authors snd architects of the gay agenda as the poster describes. There is simply not enough room on this thread to detail it all. But you really do not want to see the design of the gay / depopulation agenda for yourself. The truth of the deception will disarm all of your efforts should the general non gay / pro population continuity become aware. So your strategy is to say show me the facts hoping that people do not actually take the time to investigate for themselves. I say investigate! And expose the the house of cards your beloved agenda is contained within.

        • Mike Hind says:

          No, you don’t have any links to any sort of evidence of these claims.

          I mean surely it’s not that hard to post just one, no?

        • Mike Hind says:

          You say “investigate”, but that’s not how it works.

          When you make a claim, especially one as sinister as this one, the burden of proof is on you.

          If you offer this as fact with no evidence to back it up, it can be dismissed immediately as false.

          Providing evidence to a claim should not be difficult. Your reticence to do so shows that your position isn’t terribly strong.

  8. Mike Hind says:

    Can anyone on the NO/NO side offer a reason why?
    And then actually defend it?

    Or is courage of convictions only for other people?

    • lalalalala says:

      Mike, Have questions, maybe you can assist?

      Since there are only these 2 questions which are both Yes/No answers, can we vote Yes to both? As could happen, Marriage gets 52% and Union gets 54% what will they do? I can guarantee that a huge percentage of the 54% voted yes for both. The did only because a Union is a step in the right direction and is better than NO!!

      • PBanks says:

        That may be the million dollar question, so to speak. At what percentage points for each will the OBA decide to proceed forward, or sit tight, on either matter?

      • Mike Hind says:

        Considering this referendum is non binding, sadly your question is moot.

        The Government is under no obligation to follow the results of this. It’s pretty much a waste of time and money, but of the three options: vote, abstain or spoil, the first one seems to be the best one.

  9. rodney smith says:

    A NO NO VOTE IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. While we respect all people, it would be wrong to legalize same sex unions/ marriage .

  10. Average Bermudian says:


    • Mike Hind says:

      what does this even mean?

      It’s just ranting!

  11. rodney smith says:

    Mike, Even nature teaches that same sex unions are wrong. God created Adam and Eve. A man and a woman make one union . This can’t change, even if we individually believe other wise.

    • Mike Hind says:

      I think you’re not understanding what “nature” means. “Adam and Eve” is part of your personal choice of religions. It’s not nature.
      Marriage is a man-made construct. It’s not nature.
      “Nature” doesn’t have things like “legal rights and privileges”.
      This isn’t about belief, it’s about reality.
      You’re basing your stuff on your individual belief.

      You say “a man and a woman make one Union” and this is true. They make one kind of union. But there are other kinds of unions. All folks are asking is for you lot to live and let live and let them have their own kind of union. You’re not asking you to join them or forcing you to have any other sort of union. Your man/woman union will still be there.

      Can you not see that you’re basing your opposition to giving people equal access to rights on your religion and that that is unfair? And that it’s unfair because it would be unfair if it were done to you? If someone decided to deny you access to rights based on their religion, wouldn’t that be unfair?

    • PBanks says:

      Isn’t the Adam and Eve story inapplicable here, considering this is not a religious issue here, but a legal one (and a legal issue in a country that is not a theocracy)?

  12. the truth will set you free says:


    “A media campaign that casts gays as society’s victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness,” Kirk and Mdsen said.

    “Few straight women, and even fewer straight men, will want to defend homosexuality boldly as such. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, to some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society.

    “Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, it should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws-these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.

    “It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle.

    • Mike Hind says:

      After reading this a few times, I’m wondering what, exactly your problem is with what is being said.

      What is so wrong with this?

  13. the truth will set you free says:

    Guess what? Following that playbook has proved to mean success for the gay activist community.

    In the DADT issue we have:

    — “Normal” homosexuals in the military, who are portrayed in the media as seeking “justice and rights” (since when has there been a “right” to serve in the U.S. military?)

    — homosexuals who are portrayed as victims;

    — whose cause has been adopted by the media (think of how Hollywood has hammered and hammered at promoting gays and the explosion of pro-gay stories, pro-homosexual characters);

    — and a public that contains many who now say, “Who cares?” when it comes to gays in the military;

    — a national news media that now openly champions homosexuals in the military (think of CNN and Anderson Cooper; but think also of how countless news-inspired TV dramas — “JAG” comes to mind – have advanced the gay agenda);

    — and a cadre of women, and some men, who have an “awakened protective impulse” that is “tied to some principle of law and justice” (in this case, dedicated to the idea that homosexuality is a civil rights issue, rather than a behavior that opens the door to all kinds of negative consequences.)

    — And the portrayal of anyone who opposes homosexuality in the military as “homophobic” or hatemongers (Wait, isn’t that a form of thought control and brain washing?).

    Consider yourself “overhauled,” America.

    You’ve been played, in favor of a behavior that was once criminalized; one that most world religions – which have been around for far longer than this country — still condemn.

    And just think, it has all been done in the name of politically correct “anti-discrimination” law — which is itself a relatively recent phenomenon — and allows gay activism to trump anything else, even truth, morality or facts.

    Wow! What a winning combination – for homosexual activists, that is.

    But what a losing combination for America.

    • PBanks says:

      You’re going to have to quote a more recent article. I mean, “JAG” hasn’t aired for at least a decade now.

      And Anderson Cooper, he seems like a quite decent fella. I think he was awesome when he was hosting “The Mole”, but alas he moved on to more lucrative career opportunities.

      What are these negative consequences of this ‘behaviour acceptance’, by the way? Are people going to be recruited into ‘gayness’ like a cult or something? Are straight males and females going to switch affections en masse?

    • Mike Hind says:

      Couple of things.

      A. Why is it bad? What’s wrong with allowing gays in the military?

      B. Homosexuals ARE victims, when it comes to discrimination. How is this not clear?

      C. What negative consequences? See, when you post… or paste, in your case… stuff like this, you prove that you’re just ranting and fear mongering. You say “negative consequences”, but don’t actually define them. Heck, you don’t even have the courage to say what, exactly, is wrong with ANYTHING you’re railing against!

      D. Marriage equality and equality based on sexual orientation and gender ARE a civil rights issues! How can you say it’s not? Do you not get that people are being denied access to rights and privileges based on absolutely nothing? Do you just not understand what “Civil rights” are?

      E. This one makes your agenda clear… “You’ve been played, in favor of a behavior that was once criminalized; one that most world religions – which have been around for far longer than this country — still condemn.” First off, this is an ad populum argument. “Everybody says so” isn’t a valid argument.
      Secondly, someone’s personal choice of religions is exactly that. Personal. And should have absolutely no bearing on ANYONE else’s life, relationship or happiness.
      You are pushing a supremacist agenda based on your privilege.

      D. I love how you claim that “Gay activism” trumps facts… when you have offered none! Your side is WAY more likely to make stuff up and ignore facts that the “gay activist” side! Just look at these pastes… I mean “posts” of yours! No facts. No evidence. Just ranting nonsense, saying nothing!

    • What?? says:

      How old is the article you are cutting and pasting from? JAG???

      I’m sure if you try you could find some more up to date homophobic garbage to quote.

  14. the truth will set you free says:

    The Gay Playbook, and How It’s “Overhauling America”

    Since 1987, gay activists have basically been following a playbook.

    It first came out in the form of an article in a homosexual magazine called, “The Overhauling of Straight America” – and was later turned into a book called “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s.”

    The article was written by Marshall Kirk and “Erastes Pill.” The book was written by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (the real name of “Erastes Pill”).

    That playbook utilizes the power of the media and advertising strategy to advance the gay agenda.

    “The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights,” Kirk and Madsen wrote.

    Yes, Virginia, there is a gay agenda, and a playbook being used to fulfill it.

    This week’s change in the law that homosexuality is incompatible with military service – the repeal of the so-called “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy – is not the “triumph for America” that homosexual activists and their supporters in the Senate seemed to say it is.

    It represents the “overhauling” of America – by a homosexual activist movement that has been pushing its agenda on the nation for the last 25 years or so.

    “To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.”

    The article laid out in simple stair-step fashion how to change America’s thinking about homosexuality:

  15. Mike Hind says:

    This is all nonsense.

    And not a single argument as to why we should continue denying access to rights and privileges to these folks.

    Not one.

    Just ranting and baseless rhetoric.

  16. Mike Hind says:

    Here’s a question:

    Even if all this is true, which it isn’t, why is this bad?
    Why are you denouncing this?

    You haven’t said.

  17. Coffee says:

    I am registered ,and so are all the residents in the rest homes in my constituency … They could be counted on to be on the right side of history !

  18. Coffee says:

    Why am I surprised that they all think like me ? You know , the seniors who built this great country !

    • Mike Hind says:

      And here we have more contentless posts from “Coffee”.
      Cue the personal attack…

  19. Coffee says:

    Mother knows best !

    • Mike Hind says:

      Par for the course.

      Hate-filled and too scared to actually say it.


Sign Up For Our Free Email Newsletters


Latest Bernews Current Affairs Podcasts