Video: Mark Pettingill On Same Sex Marriage

June 2, 2016

Tony Brannon, who has been advocating on behalf of same sex marriage, recently sat down with MP and lawyer Mark Pettingill to discuss the topic and the upcoming referendum.

Mr Brannon, who posted the video on YouTube, said, “Mark has been in the front lines of Marriage Equality and represented Ijumo Hayward and Clarence Williams III with a same sex marriage application late last year. The marriage application was sadly rejected by the Registrar General.

“One of the things Mark said was of his fellow parliamentarians, ‘Will their kids look back in 20 years time and say why didn’t you do the right thing for Human Rights and Marriage Equality”.

“From where I sit, it is not too late to do the right thing, so that all people are equal in marriage. I wouldn’t want anyone saying to me, why did I discriminate against same sex couples,” added Mr Brannon.

Video courtesy of Tony Brannon:

click here same sex marriage

Read More About

Category: All, News, Videos

Comments (25)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Listen at the end of the day I don’t think that this was fairly put to the public, and we should have been given more options and choices, right now as it stands we only have two options, you vote for civil unions or outright gay marriages, there is no third options to say if a you can put that you are against both choices. They say that by voting no to both your voice is being heard, but I disagree, the whole process to this damn madness is to see the numbers that would prefer civil unions, verses the ones who would vote for outright gay marriages.

    Either way this is B.S in the highest degree and I think every politician that is behind this, need to make it very clear who they are, and then lets see the reflection of votes at the polls. I will not support either of this garbage and neither will i register to vote in a much wasted tax payers funds for a worthless referendum.

    • Gargoyle Wings says:

      If you count the ballots that voted no to both, you get the amount of people who are against both. I’m pretty sure that’s how math works. Matter of fact, if you want to get fancy, if you take that number and divide it but the total amount people who voted, you will get what is called a percentage.

    • steve says:

      I partly agree,i don’t think it was fair to put it to the public either, because the happiness and equal rights of gay folk should never be taken to a vote. Update your calendar and read a book.

    • 32n64w says:

      What additional “options and choices” would you suggest?

    • Pride says:

      Why does there need to be a third option if you are against both choices?

      Surely you just vote no twice if that’s how you feel.

    • Build a Better Bermuda says:

      ……….. you realize that normally a referendum is a single question for either a yes or no on the question. Here you have 4 options, civil unions, marriage, both or neither and you are saying that you there is only 2. I do agree with you that this a worthless referendum… the option for equality to a minority should never be decided by a majority, but is a given under the law to begin with.

    • Gabriel says:

      Hi Duane -

      It is Yes/No for Gay Marriage, Yes/No for Civil Union. A No to both choices means you are against both. This should be straight forward.

      If you are for Civil Union and not Marriage you should mark No for Gay Marriage and Yes for Civil Union. This should be straight forward.

      I can see a bit of a problem for those people who really want Gay Marriage. They might say yes to Gay Marriage and No for Civil Union.

      I don’t know if they would use the numbers for Gay Marriage and add it to the numbers for Civil Union. That should be interesting…

      Please vote and encourage everyone else to do as well!!! I don’t care what your position is. This is very very important. You lose the right to complain when you don’t have your say. :-)

      Best to all!

    • Daylilly says:

      Duane Santucci. I agree, the psychology of voting is to say yes to something. The Government is being disingenuous to put SSM on the ballot when they said they have no intention of passing any legislation for SSM.

      Additionally, the government has said the referendum is non-binding, it seems they are hedging their bets to do whatever suits them down the road.

      The questions should have made a third option available so that the public would have an opportunity to say what they do want. These referendum questions rob the community of the opportunity to a full voice.

  2. Ed Case says:

    But as a man of god of course you think you have the entitlement to treat others as if you are special and you are. You are an adult who believes in a magic man in the sky.

    That gives you all sorts of ridiculous rights. You can discriminate as you please simply because you believe in a talking snake who convinced a rib woman to eat an apple making us all eternal sinners destined to eternal fire. Because god loves us so much.

    And you think Ssm is unreasonable. Hahahaha

  3. rodney smith says:

    Mark and Tony, You are both on the wrong side of history. I feel for your concerns, but do not support them .There is no such thing as gay marriage .Bermuda stands for traditional marriage . If we get the vote, vote NO NO.

    • Mike Hind says:

      And yet, you never explain yourself. Why is that?

      You always run away from even simple questions.. Always.

      Your position is hurting people. It’s hurting Bermudians. And it’s based on lies.

      History will show who is on the wrong side and I guarantee that it will be the people promoting cowardly, baseless discrimination against the citizens of this country.

  4. dancing green troll says:

    having to vote on a human rights issue is wrong it would be the same as saying .

    do you agree mulattos should be allowed to own property?
    do you agree blacks should be allowed to own property?

    I will vote on June 23. yes to gay marriage and no to civil unions people putting this up do not think! but rest assured that I would vote for a monkey before voting for anyone else after this .

    • rodney smith says:

      You have a big mouth, but are afraid to use your own name. Chicken!!!!!!

      • Mike Hind says:

        You have a big mouth when it comes to hurting people, but are afraid to answer simple questoons.
        Who’s the real chicken?

    • Gabriel says:

      If the only choice was for Civil Union or No Civil Union which would you pick?

  5. Bill Andrews says:

    What is the difference between same sex marriage and civil union? Is it just in the name, or is there more to it than that?

    • Just the Tip says:

      There is more to it, civil unions will have less rights than marriage and will be treated differantly.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Civil Unions do not impart the same rights as marriage, nor are they recognized everywhere, now will we recognize marriages from other jurisdictions.

      • Bill A says:

        I have read the draft Civil Union and it does recognize Unions and marriages from a long list of other jurisdictions and appears to give all the current rights of marriage.

        Surely Government should explain the differences between the two questions.

      • Daylilly says:

        Same Sex Marriage in Bermuda will not guarantee that the marriage will be recognized in other jurisdictions. The only truly universal recognition of marriage is one between a male and female.

        90% of the world has said NO to same sex marriage, because there truly can be no such thing. Same gender people can love each other but they can not unite in a marriage relationship.

        Its not about bigotry, its biology and sociology.

        • Just the Tip says:

          For a “Christian” you lie a lot but you probably know that.

          If Bermuda were to go for full marriage equality and SSM was allowed then the marriages done (and on cruise ships base here) would be recongnized every SSM is allowed. But you know this already cause we’ve told you this before.

          Marriage is a legal creation of man so yes same sex couples can and should be allowed to get married. what you talking about is reproduction which is not a requirement of marriage, but you know this already.

          and as side note i’m pretty sure that 90% is bull given that the US makes up 5% which if we include all the other contries that have reconginsed SSM I’m pretty sure that it puts us over 10% but you know this already but you don’t care.

          • Daylilly says:

            You apparently lack an understanding on what was said. Again, in 90% of the world (other jurisdictions) where SSM is not recognized a Bermuda SSM would not be valid. You apparently didn’t understand what the term other jurisdictions meant. Please save your accusations until you have a clear understanding next time.

            Marriage is not a legal creation of man. Nature presents one best option for the sustainability of humans. The unique relationship can’t be duplicated by any other loving relationship at all. It is the term used to describe the loving relationship between a male and a female that is best deemed to raise any offspring.

            Men and women are not interchangeable, each is unique and necessary to enjoy the benefits of marriage and to continue human life.

            Look up information from the United Nations and SSM. Google the stats before spouting nonsense please.

  6. Mike Hind says:

    The question we should be asking is:

    Does anyone have a valid reason, one they’re willing to stand up and defend, that we shouldn’t have marriage equality?

    If not, why don’t we just remove that clause from the Matrimonial Causes Act?

    This has never been answered.

  7. dancing green troll says:

    in truth I think both bat man and robin are already both married with families and this would give robin some sort of security with bat man . if I am not mistaken, if civil unions get approved a man married to a women can also be in a civil union with a man simultaneously as there is nothing to prohibit it. vice versa.