Gay marriage faces setback in Bermuda

| 14/12/2017 | 90 Comments

Cayman News Service(CNS): Bermuda’s Progressive Labour Party took a step back this week on marriage equality after the Senate passed a bill to ban same-sex marriage, six months after it was legalised, and replace it with domestic partnerships. Legislators said the change gave the LGBT community the benefits it has been asking for while retaining the traditional definition of marriage. Senator Crystal Casesar defended the bill, saying that it codified the rights of domestic partners but also acknowledged the reality of public opinion in Bermuda. “Society largely does not support same-sex marriage nor is it prepared to accept it at this time,” she said.

The opposition said it was unprecedented to strip the right to marriage after it had been granted.

However, on this issue Bermuda is still streets ahead of Cayman, which has no legislative protections at all for same-sex couples who want to marry or have a civil partnership. Over the last few years members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community here have not only had to face the fact that equitable treatment regarding their right to marry someone they love appears to be a long way off, they have also faced significant derision in the parliament.

The news from Bermuda was picked up around the world as the British Overseas Territory is believed to be the first jurisdiction to pass the legislation and then overturn it.

According to officials, it will not roll back same-sex marriages that have already taken place. However, this development will impact the cruise trade, which had begun offering same-sex wedding ceremonies on ships since the law passed in May. Officials in Bermuda have also raised concerns about the impact of the backward step on the overall tourism product.

The original legislation that paved the way for same-sex marriage was a result of the case of Bermudian native Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé Greg DeRoche, who won the right to marry.

The Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda, a local activist group representing the interests of the LGBT community there, said it was disappointed but unsurprised at the change in the law.

“This legislation creates a ‘watered down’ version of rights, leading to a separate-but-equal status under the law. Ultimately, no separate-but-equal measure allows for equality or justice,” the organisation said on its website.

Tags: , , , ,

Category: Caribbean, World News

Comments (90)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Unison says:

    I believe in defending the “natural rights” for all citizens. However, Bermuda’s right of autonomy may be threatened here. Suppose there are talks amongst special interest elites, pressuring Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson. He may just veto Bermuda’s ban on Same-Sex Marriage through Governor John Rankin.

    Of course, it will be a move that will be unprecedented in the history of British colonialism. And it will give further credence to those advocating our Independence. The media attention and the support will be strong. But seeing the aggressive character of the LGBT movement, anything is possible.

    And imagine, look at what has happened to Bermuda. Here is a nation of about 60,000+ people that had a democratic referendum and both law-making houses, saying clearly they do not want SSM, and then (if it so happens) you have Governor Rankin through the Foreign Office, acting like a dictator, veto the wishes of the majority of the 60,000+ Bermudans – I would not think of any convincing proof or evidence that there is an LGBT leftist global agenda, which undermines and opposes cultures, religions, and traditions of native peoples.

    For the first time, Cayman Islands and all BOTs will have a better understanding on what it really means to be under the FCO’s rule on key moral issues without a real representational democracy 🤔

    Just my observations. Will have to see what happens next.




    7



    6
    • Anonymous says:

      What right of autonomy? It is British territory. The aggressive people here are the Bible-bashers desperately wanting to maintain discrimination. Two people wanting to have equal rights in respect of their love for each other is about the very opposite of being aggressive.




      4



      10
    • Fred the Piemaker says:

      Unprecedented? Do you remember how homosexuality was illegal here until it was unilaterally repealed by the Governor. And I think the same thing happened to the death sentence. The only thing that may stop that happening in Bermuda is the introduction of civil partnerships for gays – which is not dissimilar to what the UK did originally. Bottom line is if you want Cayman or any of the BOTs to have laws fundamentally different from the UK, and which breach international conventions the UK has signed up to, you better be prepared for independence.




      2



      2
      • Anonymous says:

        Cayman will never be ready for independence. Too small and would become a banana drug addled republic within about 3 minutes as Jamaican and Honduran gangs overrun the place with guns and drugs. Mind you, the price of property would fall quite quickly as everyone leaves…




        2



        2
      • Shhhhhhhhhh. says:

        Simple. Amen. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Preserving traditional Caymanian values, standards and beliefs is certainly not what the FCO is about. As long as we are ruled by the UK, we will be forced to accept the liberal UK and European value system. Honestly, it sucks, but suck it up or what?




        0



        0
  2. Anonymous says:

    The Caribbean and Bible Belt’s aggressive rectophobia likely contributes to statistically higher rates of preventable forms of colorectal cancer. Fewer men willing to submit to routine life-saving colonoscopies due to aggravated homophobic paranoia.




    6



    5
    • Anonymous says:

      We Caribbean fellas will live with those risks – and your homosexual friends can live with the risks of infectious diseases most commonly transmitted via the very orifice to which you refer.

      Deal?




      8



      8
  3. Anonymous says:

    It is a disgrace that the UK does not just step in and sort out the more backwards fringes of its territory on this issue.




    11



    15
    • Anonymous says:

      The UK cannot even sort out its own xenophobia after 300+ years of interacting with other groups of human beings – yet you are calling for their guidance on this issue?

      Oh, I forgot – certain types of discrimination are democratically endorsed by British society.




      10



      4
  4. Anonymous says:

    I have to laugh every time I come onto CNS. If CNS wants clicks or comments, all they need to do is post something about the LGBT community. If CNS posts a story about someone shooting a gun in a nightclub on West Bay Road, you may see a handful of comments. CNS posts a story about environmental degradation in the Cayman Islands, you’d be lucky if you see 10 comments? If a hooligan dies because of reckless driving and the story is posted on CNS, the most you’ll see is 3 or 4 comments telling the person to Rest In Peace and how they won’t be forgotten. But if you wanna see hundreds of comments, post something about the gays. I’ll bet my bottom dollar by this weekend, there’ll be over 100 comments on this story . Priorities, Cayman. Priorities…




    14



    2
  5. Anonymous says:

    Oh come on. Those shorts, with the socks, like we haven’t known for forever.




    10



    0
  6. Anonymous says:

    What would Buju say?




    7



    0
  7. Anonymous says:

    Most of us dont care.




    11



    1
  8. Bertie :B says:

    said this a hundred times ! let them marry , why should we all suffer alone !




    11



    7
  9. David A says:

    Time for a boycott of Bermuda. Maybe then the bigoted members of Parliament will understand that be against marriage equality and civil rights for all is not good for business. Cruise ships need to avoid Bermuda.




    11



    33
    • Diogenes says:

      They are worried about how this will effect tourism and it will

      Diogenes




      7



      12
      • Anonymous says:

        If Australia’s tourism industry is not impacted by the modern social justice warriors then Bermuda shouldn’t have a thing to worry about.

        The hypocrisy of you lot is astounding and without end.




        12



        2
        • Anonymous says:

          I thought being gay in Australia was compulsory?




          0



          0
        • Fred the Piemaker says:

          Given Australia has had civil partnerships for years, and introduced gay marriage this month, your comparator might be a bit off. Jamaica would be a better example, albeit it is a bit difficult to ascertain how much tourism a country is already losing in the current day and age if it has not implemented either. Now having it and reversing it will be interesting – be informative to see the tourism stats for Bermuda over the next 12 months and see if you or the OP are right.




          0



          1
    • Anonymous says:

      So this means boycott Cayman also, where the LGBT community have zero rights?




      4



      5
    • BDA says:

      Boycott Bermuda? Didn’t the article state that Bermuda is still years ahead of Cayman and many others in the region as it relates to SS rights? You can start by Boycotting Cayman then.




      0



      0
  10. Anonymous says:

    You be a creation of God if you want, I am a product of evolution.




    15



    9
  11. Anonymous says:

    I wonder what the non-White citizens have to say about the latest western, “progressive” country to prove their advances “down under”?

    We can be sure to witness denial and or justification for the woeful state of equality as a response in this thread as we do out of the country in question.

    Nevertheless, so many are hell-bent on this movement being the guage of a civil and just society.




    3



    3
  12. Anonymous says:

    dont worry, be happy….😁😊 we dont smoke mariganja in mustookie




    2



    4
  13. Anon says:

    Bottom line: Gay marriage is just a ruse to water down the term “marriage” . The union of a man and woman to produce childen together is a powerful institution because it unites the man and woman in a unique way and binds both of them to a group of closely biologically related offspring. I’ve read that the original Brac born Kirkconnell (a bastard) called his sons together and broke a number of sticks in half. Then he took a bundle of the same number of sticks and asked them to do the same. None of them were able to break the bundle in half. He then said: “If you stand together as brothers no one will be able to beak you.” That is the power of family and marriage.

    I am glad firstly, that Bermuda is compassionate enough to give comitted gay partners the legal protection of their own institution. I’m also glad that they are wise enough not to confuse it with the unique union of a man and a woman.

    Secondly, it would be good to introduce the option of Covenant Marriage in Cayman. Strong marriages make strong families, and a strong Cayman Islands.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage




    15



    11
    • Anonymous says:

      Great anecdote, but this is real life not a storybook, these people deserve the same rights as everyone else, if you want to refer to it as something other than marriage then feel free but they are legally entitled to it and should anyone in Cayman with the resources take it to court it will likely be upheld.

      Just a sidenote Christians didn’t invent or even initially conceptualize marriage do some research you don’t own it

      Also marriages are so fragile and delicate that the only way you can keep them together is by forcing the couples to stay together in your little covenant marriage, sounds like a great way to keep society health, force them to stay with people they no longer love or want to be with

      Where are all the Government shouldn’t be interfering in the bedroom people?




      10



      8
    • tryangle says:

      Wait, so if a couple are raising children that aren’t biologically related, that’s not as strong a family? Because that’s what I’m getting from this comment.

      Marriage is marriage, and if someone feels threatened by a gay couple’s marriage then maybe the issue lies with that person’s own marriage and what it’s built upon.




      9



      10
      • Anon says:

        Yes, a group of biologically related individuals functions differently than a diverse group. Twin studies, where idenical twins are raised by different families, strongly suggest that child outcomes are about 80% determined by the biological factors the child inherits and only 20% by the enviroment created by foster parents.

        Any fool should observe that a child has the best chance of a good outcome if raised by bio patents among full bio siblings. And yes, if possible, people who create a child should commit until their children are raised.




        5



        4
        • Fred the Piemaker says:

          You understand your example doesn’t support your argument? If 80% of the outcome was determined by genetics not upbringing, then how is the impact of your “bio” family so important? Of course, what your quoted stat doesn’t comment on is the other 20% – did the adopted child have a materially better , worse or neutral outcome than the bio family child, or did it rather depend on the quality of the parenting in both cases? If the latter, then whilst 80% may be genetic, 20% still counts (and the quality of parenting being the determining factor rather than biological parentage).




          0



          2
    • Anonymous says:

      Wikipedia, only the most dependable of sources




      5



      3
    • Unison says:

      Except for rights pertaining chiefly to children and property, as a Libertarian and believer in God, I think the government should stay out of marriage completely. They should focus more on defending everybody’s freedom ✌




      13



      2
      • Anonymous says:

        Well i’m sorry to inform you Unison but, the government does not care about your freedom. Governments we’re created with one purpose, to control. This is why we have things like human rights and the bill of rights to protect our freedom from the government.




        5



        4
      • Anonymous says:

        While you refuse to acknowledge the rights of the LGBT community, how convenient




        4



        6
        • Unison says:

          Okay then, reason with me. When you say rights, do you mean entitlements and privileges for a minority group? If so, that is not what I am for 😑

          When I talk about rights, I am talking about Natural Rights, based on Natural Law, and is defined as any right that is “dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable” like the right to life, property, faith, birth right, free speech, et cetera – see http://www.oxfordreference.com for an English definition.

          Here is my request:

          Separate for me what is an LGBT requested privilege from what is an LGBT Natural Right shared by everyone.

          When you have done that, let me know which Natural Right is our government or the government of Bermuda, is refusing to acknowledge?

          Humbly, I would really like to know🤜




          7



          4
      • Anonymous says:

        Really, you can’t think for yourself and you believe in an invisible sky god instead of the tangible and physical? Who could have guessed, I am shocked and chagrined, I didn’t see that coming from a light-year away




        6



        6
  14. Anonymous says:

    Some countries are conservative in their views of marriage, and others are conservative (aka xenophobic / racist) in their views of acceptable race / creed / background of their future population – even at the clear risk of economic decline – hence Brexit / Trump / AFD / return of collective western far-right (aka white nationalism).

    Sounds about fair.

    – Whodatis




    10



    12
    • Unison says:

      👍 agreed

      Some are incapable of reasoning a balance solution where natural rights for all are addressed in a fair and equitable way. And this includes rights for children and parents.

      Flared up emotions and self-centeredness seem to blind many on this issue.

      Unison




      13



      3
      • Anonymous says:

        Wonder if you would refer to black people as emotional and self-centered?
        Remember the civil rights era?
        Guess not




        5



        8
        • Anonymous says:

          I can refer you to a number of activist (now) lesbian couples raising the children they respectively birthed (via previous hetereosexual unions) as a family.

          I cannot however refer you to a single discriminated against Black person that was previously White or of a different race.

          To equate the 2 is the shameful oft attempted tactic by the movement.

          Fight your own fight on your own merits.




          8



          5
          • Anonymous says:

            According to detractors our fight has no merits whatsoever. Making a comparison is not shameful, it simply puts you in an uncomfortable situation which is precisely the point. It’s also why you detest the comparison and try to place distance between them because if they are similar you know that you are on the wrong side of history and have no leg to stand on.

            Don’t worry I don’t need your morals to identify similarities, I can see with my own eyes, I have read the accounts, and the stories from the different eras of oppression by a majority whether they were whites and blacks (or natives), or various clashes of religious groups, or the heterosexual majority and the queer community

            No one is saying slavery or segregation are the same thing as what the LGBT community is going through right now but are there similar portions of the situations? Yes, and you would be daft to claim otherwise, then again ration has never really been a focal point for the religious right




            2



            5
            • Anonymous says:

              1.) There is no comparison.
              2.) I am not religious or politically right.
              3.) The Japanese aren’t that keen on gay marriage either.




              5



              2
    • Anonymous says:

      Are you implying that a society has to be either racist or homophobic and as long as they are not both it should be regarded as normal or acceptable.
      Cause that’s what it seems like Wholigan




      3



      6
      • Anonymous says:

        Considering you penned the crap, you know better than all of us that is not my position.

        Anyway, care to speak to the ever-present and resurging reality of “progressive, western” democratic discrimination as referenced in my original post?

        – Who




        2



        5
        • Anonymous says:

          It’s funny you mention “progressive, western democratic discrimination” because in the modern day it is championed by the religious right, the same ones you seem to be allying with persons like Unison
          It is the stagnant remnants of the past eras where the religious right controlled the status quo What you are bringing up isn’t a new phenomenon Who simply a reemergence, something you seem entirely aware of seeing as you said “return of collective western far-right (aka white nationalism).”
          Acting like something isn’t there doesn’t mean it is gone Who, it was just simmering below the surface waiting for the right time to burst forth.

          Asking for a clarification is too much I guess Who, you’re better at dodging questions than the Office of Premier




          1



          3
  15. Anonymous says:

    The gay lifestyle is not sustainable to the existance of the human species. Just give the gay men a country and the gay women a country and in one generation they will be extinct. I dont hate gay people but i think this pro gay anti mankind agenda has gone on long enough! There are many countries u can go and live a happy gay life and marry the partner of your choice. Why do you entitled gays wanna force this on every country. Its not the norm. Most people only pretend to support gays for fear of being labled some nasty leftist title i.e homophobic




    18



    29
    • Anonymous says:

      Here we go again with the “I don’t hate gay people but…” Human extinction is the best thing that could happen to this earth.




      8



      8
      • Anonymous says:

        Keep calm and do not feed the trolls.




        3



        1
      • E. Nygma says:

        Lets finish the list:

        “I don’t hate black people but…”
        “I don’t hate muslims but…”
        “I don’t hate mexicans but…”
        “I don’t hate women but…”
        ” I don’t hate the religious but..”
        “I don’t hate atheists but…”




        3



        1
      • Anonymous says:

        The earth will burn in the coming supernova, what difference does it make whether the earth is spared even for one more day? Where your empty and futile beliefs are concerned everything is meaningless.




        0



        0
    • Anonymous says:

      First of all, there are PLENTY of people having babies, so the human species is certainly not threatened.

      Secondly, would you seriously expect gay Caymanians to have to move to another country to live, in order to have the right to marry someone they love?

      I’m not gay, but I fully support their right to the same status as anyone else. They are absolutely not affecting me or my right to love who I want, so what right do I have to judge them?

      Love is love – you can’t help who you love so don’t expect others to!




      21



      10
    • tryangle says:

      Pure nonsense. Someone being gay doesn’t mean they’re looking to make humanity extinct.

      Besides, there are other ways to have and raise children. In vitro. Adoption. Surrogates.




      6



      1
    • Anonymous says:

      This rationale has more holes than a strainer, you do understand that homosexuality is present in a minority of our species, it is likely a natural way to control the population of our species (among many others)

      I love people who think that fighting for equality = a gay agenda
      What do gay people gain from wiping out our species ( does this also mean that people who don’t want kids are trying to wipe out our species?)

      If wanting rights and protections under the law means that there is some “agenda”
      then I guess the civil rights movement was just an anti-white pro black movement right? (see how that works, I can support something without opposing the opposite, it’s called nuance)

      Why should any Gay caymanian who has just as much of a right to be here as anyone else be forced to move to another country to be happy

      Imagine white people saying “I’m not against blacks but why can’t they go back to africa and be black” (that’s how ridiculous you sound)

      If pretending to care about the freedoms and protections of your fellow men and women is such a struggle for you then perhaps we should go extinct, if loving your fellow man or woman and accepting them for what they are is too much for you then I am at a loss for words

      Calling someone who is homophobic, homophobic is rational, I guess you also have a problem with calling white supremacists racists then?

      How clueless can you be, and I just love how you think you have this all figured out, like you sitting on Cayman have figured out the “gay agenda” piss off prick




      6



      4
    • Anonymous says:

      It’s seems that as science progresses reproduction isn’t a good enough argument…




      2



      0
    • Anonymous says:

      9.53 there are nearly 8 billion people on this planet, and there are many of those who suffer starvation and poverty that we cannot dream of. Is that OK with you, or do you want to carry on bashing homosexuals? Maybe you could do something useful about the poverty/disease/hunger? We need less people, not more, so in my book if gays want to get together, let them be happy….There may be less mouths to feed and we may be able to sustain ourselves at some point….but you carry on with your nonsense and see where it leads…gay or not something is going to give sooner or later




      0



      0
  16. Anonymous says:

    Adults will consent.




    3



    3
  17. Anonymous says:

    I’ve commented so much on this topic I’m practically exhausted, but undaunted.

    I have a rhetorical question, and I’m sure it’s been posed before. How and why do government parties in the Caribbean label themselves as “Progressives” and then run from LGBT issues, even in 2017?

    I know that the Cayman Islands Government entertained the topic briefly when one – ONE – government Minister maturely discussed and supported it openly prior to the new government in May.

    What irritates me is that while Anthony Eden rants and raves in the LA, and practically intimidates and controls every MLAs’ decision on the topic, I am sure many Caymanian constituents actually support LGBT equal rights, including Gay marriage, but are not allowed to express this for fear of retaliation.

    Listen, I’m telling you, eventually the Government is going to have to come to grips with this and stop doing the yes-I’m-pro-LGBT-but-don’t-tell-Tony dance. Not only are there many LGBT Expats and Caymanians on this island, but there are many family and friends of theirs on this island as well who support their cause.

    As it is, the Government seems to have a fear that if they legislate LGBT equality then they will lose all their “prosperity” (wealth) – which is irrational, and unrelated to say the least. In fact, most Gay people I know are quite wealthy. The way I see it, if the Government DOESN’T legislate LGBT rights, you’re certainly going to lose some of your prosperity when the European Commission blocks you and the lawsuits start coming in.

    ‘Cause guess what? Caymanian LGBT persons and their Allies are still Caymanian, and the CI Government won’t be able to intimidate, manipulate and dissuade them from their island-home forever. Which means, the LGBT cause is never going away.




    18



    15
    • Anonymous says:

      You are giving Anthony Eden far too much credit, my friend.

      Re: “In fact, most Gay people I know are quite wealthy.” … really guy? Lol!

      Not only is that a ridiculous statement, to utilise as a supporting argument is beyond reprehensible.

      – Who

      Btw, most Jews I know are quite wealthy…except for those that are both the oldest groups and most discriminated against in the (supposed Jew safeheaven) state of Israel – the Ethiopians / East Africans.




      4



      7
      • Anonymous says:

        The man who left the government to make a statement
        Who challenged them publicly
        Who ran (officially or unofficially on a Christian values platform aka antigay, and 1960s Cayman preservation squad)
        Who tried to get a referendum pushed through so that he could stamp the people’s approval on his little crusade

        Who at every opportunity attacks members of the LGBT community and activists who speak in support of equality

        While some parts of the original comment are ridiculous the part about Anthony Eden isn’t far from true




        5



        5
  18. Unison says:

    A BERMUDAN ABOUT TURN

    It appears even a left-wing political party saw an infringement or a threat pertaining to the RIGHTS of children, parents, people of faith, and fellow Bermudans. And hence the reason why they chose to overturn the same-sex marriage recognition law, and grant the LGBT community “benefits” instead.

    That would make alot of sense.

    CNS, how come the article does not mention the “benefits”? Curious to see a listing of them 🤔




    15



    14
    • Anonymous says:

      “Left wing” government scared of getting voted out by the clearly conservative voters of the island, seems like a pretty simple reasoning as to why they went out of their way to adjust the laws to stay within the court ruling while creating a segregationist “separate-but-equal” system. Whether or not they found or saw an “infringement or a threat pertaining to the RIGHTS of children (according to your flawed assessments) , parents (I’d really love to hear how gay marriage infringes on the rights of parents), people of faith (as arbitrary as you are idiotic) and fellow Bermudans (as vague as you are idiotic)

      If you actually believe the party is “left-wing” then I have a tower in Paris to sell to you, maybe you can sit on it and figure out why gay people like being gay so much




      10



      13
      • Unison says:

        You stated, “people of faith (as arbitrary as you are idiotic) and fellow Bermudans (as vague as you are idiotic)”

        Your words just show to us, how you are indeed a BIGOT.

        Definition: “A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.”

        At least you are right with your first sentence 🙄 .. But I’m sure the Bermudan Senate (8/3) and House (24/10), have their reasons other than the populous.




        8



        4
        • Anonymous says:

          You do realize I was criticizing your comment not the people of Bermuda, right
          Using people of faith is in fact arbitrary because you don’t speak for all people of all faiths in Bermuda
          and Fellow Bermudans is vague which it clearly is

          Can you read Unison,
          The search for intelligent life continues

          Gonna retract your claims of bigotry or act like you aren’t the same one who complains whenever someone calls you a bigot?




          5



          5
  19. Anonymous says:

    Bigots and the religious fundamentalists will use this as some sort of validation for their claims and feel justified in their hatred, but for a second look at what it actually is

    1- Bermuda (just like Cayman) is against gay marriage and refuse to acknowledge facts regarding the discrimination of it’s own citizens
    2- A Bermudan (or Bermudian) challenged the laws and the treatment by the government in the name of preservation of morals and religion
    3- The courts in Bermuda sided with with the man who challenged the law because legally they are being discriminated against by the government and current legal system and ruled he was entitled to the same rights as any other citizen
    4- The government (specifically the legislature) responded by using a loophole in the ruling to use their authority to provide some rights in this new “separate-but-equal” Civil unions system that is being put in place (oxymoronic as usual, if they are equal why separate them in this instance? Other than bigotry of course)

    To summarize, the government was forced to acknowledge they were discriminating against a minority, and in response in order to please their conservative votes and bigots unnecessarily segregated the population while toeing the line of legal discrimination.

    I hope this is challenged in the courts again, as it will likely be struck down
    This is not a victory for the religious majority or conservatives, it is a display as to how low persons will go to segregate one group from another in the name of arbitrary morals.
    This is 2017 (almost 2018), let’s get over the whole Gay people thing, they have always existed and always will exist and deserve the same rights as anyone else.
    Their relationships don’t affect you in any way, shape or form. They don’t encourage homosexuality, they don’t turn kids gay. They don’t prey on kids, and they certainly aren’t concerned with your marriages or lack thereof, why should you?




    16



    15
    • tryangle says:

      What’s interesting is that those who support keeping marriage between only a man and a woman are celebrating this decision… not realizing that even though government rolled back rights, they instituted something that approaches civil unions, which is still something that they find disturbing.

      There are now some gay married couples in Bermuda. Presumably there will be gay couples that elect to engage in a domestic partnership. And sooner or later, one of those couples will challenge the judiciary on the ‘separate but equal’ nature of things and true marriage equality may become commonplace in time.

      And it would be fair to assume that Caribbean nations may take a similar tack in the future.




      2



      4
  20. Diogenes says:

    “Separate-but-equal” it’s almost like that was used on specific groups of people somewhere else in history, I just can’t put my Sub-Saharan African finger on it

    Everyone can acknowledge that in the past “Separate-but-equal” was indeed separate, but far from equal, yet it is still the smart solution for some in today’s complex world.

    Please tell be again that I can’t highlight similarities between the various cases of legal segregation around the world ( sometimes backed for religious reasons as well) and the current treatment of the LGBT community in the world.
    Diogenes




    10



    11
    • Anon says:

      A same sex union does not equal an opposite sex union. One can produce biologically related offspring and the other can not. We are each equal in being a unique and valuable creation of God. In every other respect we are unequal to each other in chraracteristics and abilities, attractiveness, intelligence, and so on.




      4



      4
      • tryangle says:

        well except those hetero couples where one or more person is infertile due to medical reasons or advanced age, of course… but otherwise, sure why not. Capacity for reproduction has never been a requirement for marriage up to now.




        2



        2
      • Anonymous says:

        Prove God exists and you win the argument, I’ll wait




        4



        8
        • Anonymous says:

          And I will wait for you to prove he doesn’t.




          6



          0
        • Unison says:

          Prove he does not exist, I too will wait 😎

          CNS: Prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. (Hint: you can’t prove a negative, as in Russell’s Teapot.




          3



          6
          • Diogenes says:

            To the CNS Moderator(s)

            Invisible Sky God’s blessings on you and your kin
            You bring joy to my heart




            3



            4
          • Anonymous says:

            A million dollars doesn’t exist in my bank account. I have receipts to prove it. Proving a negative is actually not very hard.




            4



            1
          • Unison says:

            Understood. But if you disbelieve in God, you should also be able to support your disbelief. The first one who skylarks the statement, “there is no God,” as well, the burden of proof falls on that person who makes the positive claim☝️

            Hence, if indeed observational evidence is lacking on both sides, to be fair, a rational person, following merely empirical evidence like sight and sound, will have no grounds for atheism – but agnosticism!

            And who can live totally without a little assumption, a little bit of theory, and a little faith in your spouse? 😂

            An agnostic must eventually pick a side between deist / theist and the atheist; or, pick a side between a negative claim by the deist / theist and a positive claim by the atheist.

            To be fair, both sides can not be proven by the human senses. And so, must rely on inferences to connect to their claims and the use of reason 🤔

            On your forum, both sides appear to tip this yin / yang scale to their favor, connecting dots …

            I think we should respect each other. To each his own. I choose the side that states to every effect there must be a cause. If the yin has given birth, a yang did it 😂




            4



            3
          • Anonymous says:

            Sorry, CNS, but you are incorrect. There are many negatives that can be proven.




            1



            0
        • Anonymous says:

          To 1:19 .i bet if God choose to show you tonight that he is real you would wish the bluff in the brac would swallow you. Be careful God may just do that when you least expect.




          2



          2
      • David A says:

        Being able to produce offspring is not a requirement for a Marriage License. If it were, couples over a certain age would not be allowed to be married. Nor would people with fertility issues. IT’s just another dumb argument that the Religious Right has tried before to put forth to justify discriminating against a minority group. Marriage equality for everyone.




        6



        3
    • Anonymous says:

      Government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Civil unions for everyone who wants to be a couple under the law.
      Get married in church is you want to be married.




      6



      0
      • Anonymous says:

        Except no church owns a monopoly on marriages, Jews get married, Muslims get married, Hindus get married, Jains, Zoroastrians, Buddhists

        Shall I go on

        Christians believe they own everything, when their religion isn’t even the oldest one in existence and clearly you took elements from religions predating your own, wake up, do research stop believing for beliefs sake, if you want to believe feel free but at least know the truth about your religion




        2



        2
      • Anon says:

        Both using the term “civil union” for a government regulated union, and having a special institution for the union of two potentially fertile persons, are good ideas. Let’s just call that second, potentially fertile, institution “marriage”.




        1



        0
      • Unison says:

        Makes sense to me if government is completely out and everybody’s natural rights are being recognized 🇧🇲✌

        Minister Kathy Lynn Simmons, the Senate leader, said, “We have a bill that gives rights to the minority, it also protects the interests of the majority.”

        So the Question of questions is – Does the Domestic Partnership Act, recognize ALL rights for LGBT citizens in Bermuda? Does these
        rights HAVE TO BE recognized via making a legal definition of marriage to be recognized by all? 🤔




        4



        1
        • tryangle says:

          The most significant problem with this set of rights is that they’re only valid in Bermuda. Should that couple emigrate to a country that doesn’t recognize this Domestic Partnership (ie, every other country on Earth), that paper carries no weight. They’d have to get other legal documents if it was for example, travel for medical reasons. If it was for employment reasons, they may be simply out of luck.




          1



          0

Please include your email address in the form below if you are using your real name. You can use a pseudonym, with or without leaving an email address, or just leave the form blank to be "Anonymous". All comments will be moderated before they are published. Please read the CNS Comment Policy at the top of this page.