HRC ‘Deeply Disturbed’ By Legislation Passing

July 12, 2016

The Human Rights Commission said they are “deeply disturbed by the recent passing of the Human Rights Amendment Bill 2016″, adding that “regardless of our position on the issue of marriage equality, we should all be concerned about the example this sets.”

The Human Rights Amendment 2016 — which seeks to maintain marriage as being defined as between a man and a woman — passed in the House of Assembly on Friday and will now head to the Senate. The Bill was originally brought to the House by Opposition MP Wayne Furbert back in February, and then voted on last week after an Amendment by Attorney-General Trevor Moniz.

HRC Human Rights Commission Bermuda TC July 12 2016

The statement from the HRC said, “The Human Rights Commission is deeply disturbed by the recent passing of the Human Rights Amendment Bill 2016 which seeks to separate a certain piece of legislation [the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974] from the anti-discrimination protection of The Human Rights Act 1981.

“Human rights are inherent, inalienable and universal entitlements of individual human beings, neither of state nor of “cultural norms” or even the will of the majority. This is why our Human Rights Act was intended to have primacy over all legislation [unless specified], with the exception of the Bermuda Constitution.

“It was enacted to protect all people, in particular, affording protection for historically marginalised or vulnerable individuals against discrimination as set out in the Act.

“The effect of the Human Rights Amendment Bill 2016 is to legally permit discrimination against individuals of a protected class, thereby enshrining discrimination in the very Act that was put in place to protect against it.

“As a community, regardless of our position on the issue of marriage equality, we should all be concerned about the example this sets. If we can so brazenly undermine our commitment to anti-discrimination in this area, why not in other areas?

“The Bermuda Constitution only prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, creed, national origin, or political opinions. The background of Bermuda’s Human Rights Act is that it was developed in 1981 to provide Bermuda with a more modern and evolved anti-discrimination framework.

“Once Members of Parliament decide it is appropriate to carve out legislation from protection under the Human Rights Act, it is opening the door for future discriminatory legislation against individuals protected by the Human Rights Act, but not the Constitution. This is a dangerous precedent.

“For example, discrimination on the basis of gender is not prohibited by the Constitution, but is prohibited by the Human Rights Act. Are we, as a community, willing to accept that the House of Assembly, if it chooses, can pass legislation that is discriminatory against women by carving legislation out from the Human Rights Act, for example?

“What would happen if the Assembly decided to pass a bill tomorrow that took away a woman’s right to vote, her ability to pledge collateral to a bank, or her ability to be employed on an equal basis to a man? The Human Rights Commission is steadfastly against any attempt by the House of Assembly to cut any anti-discrimination protection at the knees.

“Human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birth right of all human beings; their protection and promotion is the first responsibility of governments. This is also the mandate of the Human Rights Commission and our goal is to eliminate discrimination in all its forms. We believe that all people should be equal before the law and should be entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

“We encourage those within the community who support our stance to email each of the Senators before they begin debating the Bill on Thursday, July 14th July. In the event that this Bill is defeated, it will be sent back to the House of Assembly where it may be redrafted or withdrawn. We encourage the public to then reach out to their Member of Parliament and express your views to them directly.

“The email addresses of the Senators together with a template letter format that can be used in any correspondence is available on our Facebook page, we invite you to visit and engage on this issue:

“Feel free to contact the Human Rights Commission with any questions or concerns at 295-5859.”

Read More About

Category: All, News, Politics

Comments (124)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Joe says:

    The Bermuda government fights against equality and human rights who ever heard of such with all the problems and issues facing the country this is what they are fighting over please embarrassed for us

    • inna says:

      A comma here and there will help get your point across, mate!

    • Jus' Askin' says:

      HRC is a OFF on this one :-D

    • Onion Juice says:

      Where were de Human Rights Commission during de Civil Rights Movement?

      • Mike Hind says:

        Where were most of us?

      • sage says:

        They should be more deeply disturbed that people are still treated as criminals and have their rights trampled upon over a beneficial plant in 2016.

      • Not competing rights says:

        The Commission was established in 1981…so sadly was not yet in existence, but I would argue the Civil Rights Movement is still continuing to this day because we have yet to eliminate racism as daily examples can attest. The Human Rights Act, together with CURE legislation, was enacted to help enshrine anti-discrimination in direct response to the racial segregation and inequality that plagued (and continues to plague) our community….one issue of equality does not negate another as Martin Luther King Jr so rightly reminded us. In fact, that is the whole point of their statement. The government brought this issue to the fore, so it is being addressed.

        • Point boy says:

          We’re in Bermuda here. What you see on tv is happening else where. Really not much of a comparison.

          • Point boy says:

            And we’re Not talking about race! I know some like to continually bring it up.

      • hmmm says:

        Go look it up.

      • wahoo says:

        Was not around then but I am guessing that HRC and similar bodies evolved during and after the civil rights movement. I hope that answers your question.

      • Build a Better Bermuda says:

        It was formed as a result of the civil right movement and is there to ensure the protection of all individual and minorities in Bermuda. You don’t like LGBT people, we get that, and nobody is forcing you to join or be a part of the LGBT, nobody is forcing you to marry someone of your sex. But your prejudice and intolerance (whether from your narrow mindedness or religious indoctrination), about how others live their lives (that in no way impacts how you live your life) doesn’t not give you or any other the right to deny them access to the same services and laws that you are entittled to. This is why the HRA & HRC exist.

        In no way does granting Same Sex couple equality under the law impact on how you choose to live you life, it hasn’t destroyed a single society yet (in fact most of the countries ranked highest for quality of and happiest life have some form of marriage equality) and has been proven to have no more negative impact on children than ‘traditional’ marriage.

      • Unbelievable says:

        There wasn’t a Human Rights Commission in Bermuda during the Civil Rights Movement. YOu’re another one who doesn’t ever know what they are talking about.

  2. Family Man says:

    An anti-discrimination act is amended to allow discrimination.

    Only in Bermuda.

    Shameful. I’m thoroughly disgusted with those who voted for discrimination.

    • OBSERVER says:

      too bad

      • Hmmm says:

        Observe, do you believe Gay people are inferior equal or superior to you ?

    • Terry says:

      Very misleading comment.

    • Thinking says:

      Freedom of speech own opinion believe in what you believe do the right thing foundation is foundation

  3. Swing Voter says:

    Majority rules….in Parliament, and via referendum….this simply means that the majority of MPs and the electorate are intellectual and societal Neanderthals ;-)

    • George says:

      The Referendum on Same Sex Marriage and Unions on June 23rd was invalid! Those against SSM and Unions continue to use the percentages of for and against SSM/Civil Unions from this referendum as evidence of a mandate for MPs to do what they did in passing the Human Rights Amendment Bill 2016 on July 8th. They had no such mandate as less than 51% of the electorate voted in that referendum.

      • Legalgal says:

        And the MAJORITY of registered voters were not against the referendum question. Only 14,000 odd voted NO. Out of over 44k. And as such the referendum was not valid.

        These politicians do NOT have a mandate to vote this bill through.

        In any event, in these matters, it doesn’t matter what the majority wish to force through. The point is to protect minorities against discrimination.

        Bermuda’s parliament should be ashamed of their actions.

    • MoreSchismata says:

      In a democracy, the majority rules so you lot need to accept the Decision. You laud democracy right? Now stand by it.

      A republic is what would enable the individual(homosexual) or maybe not, and negate the majority but you lot are not ready for a republic. But still being an ens legis as most are, perhaps statutory law will find a way to legally marry same sexes as statutory law is colourable(not real) anyway.

      • AD says:

        Wrong. You only have half the story.

        The basic principle of democracy is majority rule coupled with the protection of minority rights. While a democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it equally must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority.

      • mark says:

        You fail to understand that human rights are not determined by the will of the majority. They are there to protect minorities. If the will of the people always prevailed the civil rights movement would have never been succesful, for example.

      • Mike Hind says:

        But the referendum was a) non-binding and b) not answered, so this whole post is wrong.

        • blankman says:

          Exactly – the fact that the majority of those that voted said no does not change the fact that two-thirds of registered voters either said yes or didn’t think it was sufficiently important to take a position.

  4. LostinFlatts says:

    Couldn’t agree more with the HRC’s concerns – grave concerns – but have no faith whatsoever in our politicians to recognise the seriousness of the road they’re going down.

    Human Rights are not about personal beliefs, votes or religion. They should transcend that in such a way as to make a better, more evolved society. It is fundamentally all about the simple concept that we’re all created equal, and should be treated accordingly.

    Disagree with that? Bizarre.

  5. paperboy says:

    Good for our Human Rights Commission to come out publicly and state their position – it joins a clear message from Mr. Marshall. They are protecting us from ourselves.

    I trust our Senators are willing to take the calls and read the emails from their Bermuda Community and reject this reactive position on Human Rights.

    We need to broaden our human rights in Bermuda not narrow them to who we like or don’t like at a particular time in our history.

    Offer rights to our Seniors!

  6. just wondering says:

    all those who voted in favour of this shocking amendment to the legislation (and that person who abstained!!) ought to be ashamed of themselves – to allow their own personal prejudices override their sense of what is right!! All of you “politicians” read this carefully

  7. frank says:

    I understand human rights
    but I also understand right from wrong
    yes and folks will say that the bible is an old book and we worship some magic guy in the sky but all this was talked about in the bible
    god told man than that man with man was wrong way back than and it is still wrong now.
    we in Bermuda will not allow some filthy European lifestyle to take over are island what the members of the house did on Friday night was the right thing to do for Bermuda.
    and all who don’t like it can find some where else to live their filthy lifestyle but it won’t be in Bermuda.
    this government has wasted enough money on this
    you all can get on a plane and leave

    • Just the Tip says:

      So you’re willing to force your religon on others (which is against human rights and wrong )to deny others rihts that you have access to. You want to call it a filthy European lifestyle (which its not) yet still claim your religion which came from Europe (most christian religions all stem from the Catholics which is european) seems a tad hypocritical to me.

      You do know that being gay isn’t illegal and it is our right to live in Bermuda as Bermudians.

      I got to know why do you feel that you are intitled to tell me to leave the country of my birth just because you don’t like what I am? why don’t you leave and go somewhere else?

  8. stunned... says:

    defeat this hate bill
    roll back this pro-discrimination bill
    send this anti-equality bill back to the caves where it belongs

    shame on the HOA members for even conceiving this bill.

    • Equality says:


      Bermuda equality will win over prejudice and hate.

      FAMILY MAN has it right:
      An anti-discrimination act is amended to allow discrimination.
      Only in Bermuda.
      Shameful. I’m thoroughly disgusted with those who voted for discrimination.

  9. campervan. says:

    Hey Bermuda Gov , can I have my 25K back that has been paid to you for PRC?
    I don’t want to live in a country where the leaders legislate prejudice.

    • Jus' Askin' says:

      Cheque is in the mail ;-)

    • Real Deal says:

      If you did not like the culture of Bermuda why did you try to adopt here as your country for your children?

      Its like marring a sea cadet then telling him you hate the sea and want nothing to do with it.

      You should have did your research before you paid your 25k.
      Bermuda is not some country club and you can not change a culture to reflect your culture of origin. Your kids and your kids will have the opportunity to mold Bermudian culture if they stay here not yourself.

      This is why votes are important Bermudians.

      • Legalgal says:

        It is not the “culture”. It is not “the law”.

      • Mike Hind says:

        And how will marriage equality change the culture of Bermuda? And, if it does, why is that a bad thing?

        Wouldn’t a change to a more tolerant, equal culture be what we should be working for?

        • Thinking says:

          Mr gay leader/ambassador it will change bda why can’t you understand that why are you and your sick friends trying to bring your sickness out in the public why ?

          • Mike Hind says:

            And yet, you don’t say how.
            Odd that.

            And you do know that “this sick behaviour” is already “out to the public”, right? Stopping folks from getting married isn’t going to stop them from being gay, being in relationships, having sex… Your misguided hatred is blinding you to reality. As evidenced by your puerile lashing out in the first bit.

            Why does me trying to defend and help a disenfranchised minority anger you so much?

          • Mike Hind says:

            Why not just say HOW it will change Bermuda?

            Surely it’s not that hard to do so…

          • hmmm says:

            Ignorant award goes to “Thinking”

      • Hmmm says:

        There are a large number of gay and lesbian people in Bermuda. Some are politicians, at lest one was Premier, some you buy your food from, some pay your wages, some teach your children, some are you children, some are your relative, some are you.

        Gay and Lesbian people are very much a part of Bermudian culture.

    • wahoo says:

      Buyer beware dude….did you not realize what you were getting into? Bermuda is another world.

    • Thinking says:

      Go home now

    • Thinking says:

      Go home now and take the rest of the sick people with you and hope you all don’t land

      • Mike Hind says:

        You’re wishing death on people: “hope you all don’t land”, and THEY’RE the sick ones?

        This is Westboro Baptist Church level hate here!

      • Lualaba says:

        @Thinking…!this is home… Have a problem with it?

        • Thinking says:

          Did you paid 25k for PRC ? No so why answer ?

      • Gargoyle Wings says:

        Come out of the closet already sheesh

      • Anbu says:

        Funny how you and your people wont “go back home” lol only on this stupid rock, full of stupid people. Unfortunately, we cant fix stupid so you lot will always win. Interpret that however you want. Im a product of my environment.

  10. John says:

    people have individual rights such as the freedom of expression, movement, religion, assembly, etc… none of those things require anyones consent or agreement. In the states those rights are endowed by the creator and here they are protected by the constitution. Since “marriage” requires the consent of more then 1 party (recall the “I do”) it is not an inherent right. It requires 2 or more people to come to an agreement. If it is the holy RITE of matrimony, it requires the consent of the imam or priest, and if it is a govt licensed contract it requires the agreement of not only the officials, but also the consent of EVERYONE (note the intent to marry ads in the paper (both maritime law and marriage act)). Therefore there is a deliberate attempt by the gay agenda drivers to misconstrue this as a “human right” issue… when it is not a right at all, because rights do not require anyones consent!

    • Just the Tip says:

      this is misinformation and based on on religious views.

  11. Terry says:

    HRC has no power. They don’t make Laws.

    Move on.

  12. Rhonda says:

    Don’t we discriminate in the best interest of the bus for children and seniors. And I can go on…

    Secondly marriage like immigration isn’t a human right.

    • sandgrownan says:

      You know how I know you’re an idiot? it’s about denying something the rest of us take for granted to a segment of the population.

      Howe about we deny people with an IQ in single digits the vote? That would rule you out, how do you feel about that?

    • Unbelievable says:

      You have no idea what you are ever talking about.

      Free bus rides? Discriminatory????? If we didn’t have those things (which if I remember correctly came under your hero Ewart Brown), you’d be screaming bloody “oligarchy this or that!!”.

      Just please don’t say anything.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Yes. But we do them for reasons.

      What reason is there to stop people from getting married?

      • Thinking says:

        What’s wrong with a man and a woman getting married ? Nothing so why try to change it ?

        • Mike Hind says:

          Who is trying to stop a man and a woman getting married?

          Is that what you think this is? Do you think we’re saying that only sane sex couples can get married?

          Wow. Is that what the problem is here?

          See, ‘cuz that’s not it at all! We’re fighting to ADD to it. We’re trying to allow ALL consenting adult couples that aren’t already family members to get married, not deny one group for no reason.
          There’s nothing wrong with a man and a woman getting married. No one is trying to change that.

          What’s wrong with a man and a man or a woman and a woman trying to get married? Why are you trying to stop that?

      • Thinking says:

        What kind of people ?

    • Rhonnda Oliver says:

      The issue is equal rights.

      There is no reason to stop any adult capable of giving legal consent from entering into the legal contract of marriage.

      Yes, that’s all marriage is.
      A legal contract, not a religious one.

      How do I know this?
      Because I happen to be married.
      I was married in a church, in Bermuda, by a minister, who was aware that my beliefs don’t fit with traditional religions.
      So clearly a marriage is not a religious contract, though it can be sistered with a religious contract.

    • Mark Perry says:


      What a stupid posting!

      All you are doing is propagating the silly argument about marriage not being a “human right” without any critical thought behind it. Who decides that it’s not a human right? you? Maybe it should be a human right or at least a civil right!

      And please don’t start going on about marriage being for the purpose of procreation and rest of those ridiculous religious based arguments. If that’s the case, anyone over the age of 50 should be prevented from getting married.


    • mark says:

      Thats slightly flawed. Marriage isnt a right you are correct. But there are certain rights and entitlements that come with being “married.” Now those rights are being restricted to one class of people. That is the problem. Civil unions also nullify your argument.

  13. Rhonda says:

    Is a basic living wage a human right…is slavery a human right for employers..

    • Mike Hind says:

      Completely different topics. Why bring them up?

      Why not discuss the topic at hand?

      • Thinking says:

        No its not we talking about human rights

        • Mike Hind says:

          No, we’re talking about equal access to rights that the rest of us share, rights that are currently denied to certain Bermudians for absolutely no reason.

    • Point boy says:

      What the hell are you going on about? Everyone is talking Apple’s and you say broccoli!

    • Mark says:

      Reduction ad absurdism. In English you have taken your argument to an extreme and illogical extreme but slavery is a good example of an instance where the will of the majority should not determine human rights and why there should be human rights law to protect minorities. Thank you for using that example.

  14. takbir Sharrieff says:

    A human right, does not give anyone the right to invade the privacy, morality, public probity, decency, and morays of any society,.L.B.G.T.q behavior offends all of these, the same sex marriage is a stink in the nostrils man and G-D the creator of the heavens and the earth ,and all that is between …..The Earth will throw away and reject this behavior until man comes to his senses, and his sensibilities. Without fail,in the fullness of time.Peace,.

    • Mike Hind says:

      You really don’t see it, do you?

      Nothing in here makes any sense.

  15. OBSERVER says:

    Your flight awaits you. Just get packing.

    • sandgrownan says:

      Jesus, you really are an assclown aren’t you.

      So, to be clear, you are in favour of discrimination?

    • campervan. says:

      Well you folks have already hounded out a thousand or so gay Bermudians with your vitriol. (There is a modern day gay Bermudian diaspora in London and Toronto.)
      So whats a few more of us chased out of town too eh?

    • Ed Case says:

      Observer, it is so easy to ignore human rights when they don’t affect you. Think about that and the theatre boycott for example.

    • Lualaba says:

      @OBSERVER… Why don’t you pack up and go? The only true Bermudians are the lizards!!

  16. Kevin says:

    Thank you HRC Thank you for letting those who should know but obviously don’t that they are part of the problem and not a part of the solution . All of those yes voters and the abstained vote need to be ashamed and should this be defeated in the senate and we are hoping it will , Furbert needs to withdraw it and come back with a much better amendment that isn’t discriminatory in any sense

    • Thinking says:

      You parents need to withdraw from you Kevin

  17. Keepin' it Real!...4Real! says:

    Sybil got it right and props to him…Tony Brannon and Mike Hind are more of a hindrance than a help for the cause…straight from the horses mouth…Both of you guys are the ones who should be ashamed…thinking you’re gonna be some heroic history makers…let HOMOSEXUALS fight and DEFEND their cause…It shows conviction, dedication and commitment for themselves and brings more respect than a few so called straight males spouting off jibberish at the drop of a dime…bloody entertainment and baphomet worshippers…

    • Mike Hind says:

      Thank you for this baseless as hominem.

      Noting in here is true or even sane – baphomet worshippers? – and is a very transparent and desperate attempt to silence allies and isolate the LGBT community.

      Why do you have to resort to these insane, dishonest tactics in order to support your position?

      Why not just use facts and data and real things instead of these bizarre, misinformed tactics?

    • Mike Hind says:

      And I don’t recall Mark mentioning me at all. Can you provide a link to that?

    • Mike Hind says:

      And I just got it straight from the horse’s mouth myself. He never said anything remotely like that about me.

      You, “Keepin’ it Real!…4Real!” are a liar.

      Shame on you.

  18. rodney smith says:

    The HRC is wrong. Parliament has the right to make law . This law will protect marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

    • Mike Hind says:

      Which is discriminatory and infringes on people’s access to rights.

      How is the HRC wrong?

      At least be honest that your position discriminates, for crying out loud!

    • Ed Case says:

      Rodney I’m sure people said the same thing about blacks marrying whites back when you were a young one.

      Very sad.

    • Lualaba says:

      @ROdney Smith… How about we add to that and say marrage is between a man and a woman of the same race… Why not discriminate some more.!!! why not take the vote from women? … What exactly do you have against the gay comunity?

    • Rhonnda O says:

      Protect marriage?

      How about protecting people?

      Or is this just another case where things are more important than people?

    • Mark says:

      You have misunderstood the principal and reason for human rights laws. They are there to primarily protect the vulnerable minorities. You’re are right however about what this law does on its face but have missed the point of its actual affect. It restricts the rights and entitlements that come with being married to one class of people and allows discrimination against another. A civil union pathway would solve your problem. Would you agree with civil unions?

  19. Mark says:

    I really don’t think some our leaders understand the concept of Human Rights. The passing of the adments are completely antithetical to the very idea of human rights. Unfortunately it looks as though we will have to wait for the next generation of leaders before Bermuda can truly have equal rights for all!

    • Point boy says:

      I agree Mark. But good luck with that

    • Mark says:

      I’m afraid it’s more fundamental and far reaching than that. Judging by the comments from furbert, Burt and others on this board, there is a basic lack of knowledge about human rights in bermuda in general.

  20. Portia says:

    Why should the HRC be disturbed that the HOA passed this Act? The Human Rights Amendment Act 2013, by adding sexual orientation as a ground of discrimination, was NEVER meant to legalise gay marriage anyway. That was clearly conveyed by the Members of Parliament in 2013 and it was consistently stated so by advocates of the bill at that time. The following statement was put out by Two Words & A Comma in June 2013 as part of their “9 Things You Should Know” (about the HRA Amendment 2013):

    “It Will Not Legalise Same Sex Marriage: The Marriage Act 1944 governs matrimonial affairs. This Act (as well as additional Acts) would require significant modifications in order to legalise same sex marriages. An amendment to the Human Rights Act would simply ensure that individuals have a course of legal redress should they be fired, refused a public service, or denied accommodations based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation.”

    So what is the problem? The Act that was passed Friday simply reinstates by law what was already agreed in 2013 (that marriage would remain between a man and a woman). By protesting now, the LGBT community is only making itself appear to be deceitful and disingenuous as to the true motivation behind the HRA Amendment Act 2013, and that will surely lead to greater friction and trouble ahead.

    • Mike Hind says:

      As per usual, nothing in one of “Portia”s posts is correct.

      Why can’t you just TRY being honest?

  21. Man what says:

    “Feel the love” unless of course you happen to be a homosexual or born on the island to foreign parents. So ashamed of my country and their understanding of rights.

    So preserve marriage. When is the next referendum to ban divorce and adultry? Or would you suddenly have a short attendance of members at your next meeting? Hmmm…

  22. Lualaba says:

    Mark… Unfortunately our leaders care more about re-election than the people. I’m afraid the next generation will not be much better!

  23. Max says:

    Expats have no human rights and the same for bermudian gays and lesbians. Bermuda is an intolerant and racist country.

  24. shutthemdown says:

    I don’t think marriage is a human right.

    You do have the right to be treated fair.

    Now please explain why you are only after the word “marriage”?

    Again I believe that the lbgt community has such hatred for all churches that they live only to take away the word from them.

    Equal right you can have thru the courts, not sure about the word “marriage”

    • hmmm says:

      This makes no sense. Are you paranoid?

    • Mike Hind says:

      The word marriage doesn’t belong to the church.

      Why do you keep ignoring replies to your posts and just keep repeating this falsehood?

    • Just the Tip says:

      First and for most is marriage a right? Not a human right but just a right. If you answer no then why is it not a right according to you? If you answered yes then guess what denying me the right to marry because I’m gay is discrimination based on sexual orientation which makes it a human rights issue. Even if you said know this applies because there are rights and privileges that come with marriage are being block ed because of sexual orientation which again makes it a human rights violation.

      We’re not ‘only after’ the word marriage, we are after the rights and privileges that marriage afford. If the government could 100% guarantee that civil unions would have all the right and privileges then we’d be fine with it. But as other countries have shown in most cases when civil unions are introduced there are rights missing of the wording makes them less legal the what they should be, this of course lead back to the courts and then to the eventual realization by the government that it is simpler, easy, more cost effective, and right to just allow marriage to be for all.
      Also because marriage is what is used in all legal documentation and in the acts ect why wouldn’t we focus on it? If was any thing else we would focus on that because it makes no sense focusing on any other word.

      We don’t hate the church there are many who are in the church still what we hate is that you are using religion to make us less then you for no reason. And since when has marriage been just a religious word? Marriage is combination of latin and French words that mean for ‘people to come together in union’ (I’m paraphrasing but if you like I could google it for you) and how would marriage equality take the word marriage from a church? It’s not like the churches would be stopped from using the word and they wouldn’t be stopped from refusing to marry same sex couples as their right to decline on religious reasons is protected by the HR and the Constitution of Bermuda.

  25. We the People (1st!!) says:

    With all due respect, this is a load of rubbish from the HRC. They must not understand legal rulings or their lawyers are purposely misleading the people.

    Last Month – in June – The European Court of Human Rights ruled that if a state does not recognise same-sex ‘marriage’, this does not constitute “discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation,” when it declared a ‘marriage’ between a same-sex couple to be invalid.

    The Court unanimously found that Article 12 (right to marry), taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) were not violated. This means that the French State, preventing two men from marrying (at a moment where the law did not provide this possibility), did not violate the European Convention for Human Rights.

    If human rights are inherent, inalienable and universal entitlements, then under no circumstances can someone be denied these rights, correct? So if you apply this to marriage, then no one, under any form of union between consenting adults, should be denied the right to marry. But yet there are limitations on marriage found permissible by the ECHR, which if marriage was an inalienable or inherent right, would mean these limitations are discriminatory for whatever the reason. But yet again, in many, many cases the ECHR have ruled against same-sex marriage complainants seeking marriage. Hmmmm!

    Last, the example talking about a hypothetical taking away of a woman’s right is a very poor choice of an example. Gender, like race, is an inalienable right, marriage is not. Very poor choice.

    • cpt says:

      Gender is not a right. Gender is a protected class. As is sexual orientation (you may disagree with this but, regardless, it is). Therefore, discrimination against gender or sexual orientation is not permitted under the HRA. Marriage, per se, may not be a right but marriage endows rights under a state sanctioned legal contract. The ECHR said that governments must provide legal frameworks that allow such rights to be endowed to same sex couples. If that’s not marriage, that’s fine but there must be something that gives the same legal rights.

  26. joe gibbons says:

    So, I would urge all members of the HRC to resign. Do you have a choice?

  27. Coffee says:

    There is no room on the pole for the rainbow flag , unless of course it’s a symbol to keep Bermuda free from the flood of gay marriages . The HRC have no say in how Bermuda views the sanctity of marriage .

    There is no room for the hopeless sinner who will hurt all mankind to save its own , believe me ! Have pity on those whose chances grow thinner , for there’s no hiding place from the Kingdoms throne … Curtis Mayfield .

    • Mike Hind says:

      And more nonsensical hate from “Coffee”, adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.

      Thank you for your input. Smh.

  28. TGAOTU says:

    I am deeply disturbed when others try to push and force their own beliefs upon me, especially when it is not natural or normal. There is nothing you can say.

    • sandgrownan says:

      Like religious beliefs?

    • Just the Tip says:

      Who is forcing you and how? If you don’t believe SSM that is fine, don’t get one, don’t go to one just live your life like you always do.

      No one is holding a gun to your head and stopping you from doing anything you normally do.

  29. Billy Joe says:

    I say if we legalize gay marriage, then we should also have to legalize incest and incestual marriage, pedophilia, bestiality, and the whole lot of em, right? What other things are “YOU BORN LIKE” that we can demand we want to force on everyone else? hmmmm?
    How about its our right to be naked, so lets make public nudity legal! And also its our right to have intercourse so legalize public intercourse and nude restaurants and strip clubs. Its our right we were born that way. And some people are born serial killers, so legalize serial killing too. Makes so much sense, just like the gay marriage.

    • Just the Tip says:

      Misinformation and scare mongering on such a stupid level. All these issue you have raise have been dealt with before. How about some actual and reasonable reasons for why your against SSM you bigot.

  30. Darrrrrkkkkkk Matter says:

    I want to marry lots of women and men at the same time. I want to have 5 husbands and 5 wives. You cant tell me no. Its my right as a human. My human rights. The human right commission should bow down to my demands and do what I say because i feel like i was born this way. I WANT MY 5 HUSBANDS and 5 WIVES!!!!!!! Gimme gimme!

    • Just the Tip says:

      Then as has been said before when some one brings this up, start movement and get the information out there take the issue to the courts and all of that if your really serious. This (poligamy) has nothing to do with SSM and is a seperate issue and should not be used as an excuse to block SSM.

  31. Clockwork Orange says:

    If you wanna legalize gay marriage then you must legalize incestual marriage too. The human rights and LGBT community in other countries is pushing for this too. ITS TRUE GO GET EDUCATED. because its natural and they were born that way, right?

    • Just the Tip says:

      lies and misinformation

      post actual proof

  32. Long Bay Trading Co. says:

    what took so long HRC?? You must have known this was in the pipeline yet you wait until 4 DAYS AFTER the Bill is tabled to make a comment??
    I am with Joe Gibbons – along with our bigoted politicans, HRC needs to resign en masse as well.

  33. Malcolm says:

    Human rights ????
    A man sleeping with another man is wrong.
    We don’t have to accept that cause everywhere else does.
    Why would a man marry another man … Foolishness

    • Just the Tip says:

      They would get married because they are in love and want to enter into the legally binding contract known as ‘marriage’ just like any other couple and be afforded all the same rights and privileges that their opposite sex counterparts enjoy.

  34. Just the Tip says:

    got to love that four post above sound exactly the same meaning either its the same person or they are all sitting in the same room going off the same script of lies and misinformation.