Open mike: Same-sex marriages

Another chance to talk about a subject of your choice.

First comment sets the topic for debate. If you ask a question, please give your own thoughts on the subject too, even if it's in a subsequent comment. And if you have set the subject in a recent open mike, please give someone else a chance to do so this time.

» Martin says: "Elton John has recently done it….two Bermudian couples have done it, albeit in Toronto.

Same sex couples all over the world are getting married – but not in Bermuda.

One local matrimony lawyer says there is no existing law here to outlaw same sex marriages. The Registrar General, however, is confused as to what the law allows. Renee Webb says she is not sure that it is even an issue here.

• Is it right that such marriages should be recognized in law at all?


• Is it time to not only resolve any dubiety around this particular issue that seems to exists in Bermuda, but also to permit such unions to take place here?

My own view on both questions is 'yes', it is; we need to move on as a society."

Comments

[Martin on 12.01.06 at 08:46]

Elton John has recently done it….two Bermudian couples have done it, albeit in Toronto.

Same sex couples all over the world are getting married – but not in Bermuda.

One local matrimony lawyer says there is no existing law here to outlaw same sex marriages. The Registrar General, however, is confused as to what the law allows. Renee Webb says she is not sure that it is even an issue here.

• Is it right that such marriages should be recognized in law at all?
• Is it time to not only resolve any dubiety around this particular issue that seems to exists in Bermuda, but also to permit such unions to take place here?

My own view on both questions is “yes’, it is; we need to move on as a society.

[Fourth Estate on 12.01.06 at 09:06]

The point is moot without a test case. But I suspect that couples who might otherwise come forward hesitate without the protection of the Human Rights Act. The two issues are linked.

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 09:30]

Bermuda is remarkably backward on this issue and has a stance to which the bible belt of the US can only aspire. Much as I dislike her politics, Webb is right on this issue, and like many I was dissapointed with Government in the recent debate.

I thought the point was to a recognise that gay couples have the same rights in society and under the law as heterosexual couples. A gay couple can live to together throughout their lives (there is no common law equivalent), one dies and the the remaining partner is not able to take advantage of the rights of a hetrosexual couple.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The common thoguht is that gay couples (especially gay men) are promiscuous and are somehow a drain on the moral fibre of the country. Nothing could be more stupid on an island where the "outside child" and a "mistress" is almost a right of passage.

We need to move forward now, allow gay marriage and recognise gay couple under the law.

And the God botherers should just butt out.

[Yet Another Limey on 12.01.06 at 09:38]

If the government got it’s act into gear and passed this legislation it could help to revitalise the tourist industry.

Pink beaches can attract the pink pound (or dollar).

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 09:43]

I met a gay couple while travelling with my wife, and we were talknig about Bermuda and all it has to offer. I had to answer though, when asked in Bermuda was gay friendly, in the negative.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 12.01.06 at 10:22]

Sandgrownan,

"A gay couple can live to together throughout their lives (there is no common law equivalent), one dies and the the remaining partner is not able to take advantage of the rights of a hetrosexual couple."

When one partner dies what specific rights does the surviving partner lose? Two people can own a home together and if one dies the other takes full ownership. They can name each other in their respective life insurance policies and wills. During their lives the only rights they do not have are being able to name each other as dependents on a medical insurance policy.

I do not support same sex marriage. I was raised in the Church with the teachings of the Bible and I believe marriage is not only about companionship but also about the procreation of life. I also do not support the "outside child" or "mistress" you mention. In many ways there are some pastors that are hypocritical in that they will preach against homosexuality but will be silent on adultery. I do not agree with this either. No sin is any greater than another.

Just because my beliefs differ from yours does not make my beliefs wrong and yours right or vise versa. I think my actions have shown that I offer respect to all but respecting does not necessarily translate into agreement.

I do not condone attacks on gay people, I do not believe they should be singled out and shamed. I do not dislike gay people and I am not homophobic. I do not dislike people who cheat on their spouses or those who choose to live together before marriage but that does not mean I have a phobia. I may not agree with what they do but I do not dislike them as people nor would I disrespect them as people or condone them being disrespected as people.

[Uncle Elvis on 12.01.06 at 10:30]

"a stance to which the bible belt of the US can only aspire"

Ah yes... I heard this lovely little gem the other day:
"Ve ink latin no feggits git married hur."

We've had several arguments on these boards about the human rights issue, one of which was a misunderstanding blown out of proportion, but I AM curious as to how J Galt and H Reardon stand on this one.

Personally, I think it's bullshit that people consider same-sex marriages to be against the sanctity of marriage, but the one-day marriages of people like Britney Spears and Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra seem to be just fine to them. Where's the constitutional amendment banning those?

[Yet Another Limey on 12.01.06 at 10:32]

Guilden,

Just out of curiosity, where in the bible does it say that being gay is a sin?

Because if you're pointing at Leviticus then you should follow all the rules laid out there, like not shaving, not eating pork, not eating lobster/shrimp and my personal favourate:
Lev 20.9 Any child that curses their parents shall be put to death (so that's most teenagers then).

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 10:32]

Guilden - Without the writing of wills and insurance policies is one thing - I can leave my house to your dog if I want. The reality is that heteasexual couples have a common law perspective and the right to be married under the law. This gives partners rights in event of death or breakup.

For example, in the UK, taxation is significantly different if a couple is married. There may be similar instances here in Bermuda where married couples have different rights. Why should same sex couple be denied those rights.

Similarly, I'm talking about the legal marriage, not in a church. That's something the church needs to deal with. Also Guilden, what right do you have to prevent gay couple being married under the eyes of God? Are you saying gay people don't or can't have faith. It's been well proved that homosexuality is not a choice, but a genetic condition. And I thought we were all God's children, or is this church hypocrisy again?

[Uncle Elvis on 12.01.06 at 10:36]

Guilden, one extreme example. Say a couple has been together for 20 years. One of them gets sick and falls into a coma. He's asked to not be resuscitated. His parents think pulling the plug is a sin, or a crime, or whatever. A wife would have the right to say, "No, this is what he wanted." and have it happen. A "husband" wouldn't.
A "husband" could be thrown out of the room BY the parents, as he has no legal standing.
This is all they are asking for. Well, that and to not be insulting by calling it something other than a marriage.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 12.01.06 at 10:58]

Yet Another Limey,

The Bible does not mention that being gay or same-sex marriage is a sin. I never said it was. When I said no sin is greater than any other I was not being literal, I was simply using an analogy. The problem with written word is it is open to interpretation without a great deal of explanation

I am not going to get into a debate over your beliefs versus mine, I was only stating what I believe. The fact is, as I said, just because we hold different views does not mean that one is right or wrong, we simply view the matter differently.

As I have said in the past I do not condone discrimination of any type and the fact that I do not support same-sex marriage is not the same as discrimination just as the fact that I do not support adultery does not equate to discrimination.

As far as I am aware I treat everyone as an equal. I was raised to believe that no one was better than me and that I am better than no one else and that is how I conduct myself. I am not going to judge someone based on their sexual orientation nor would I treat him/her any differently then I treat anyone else.

Sandgrownan,

I thought we were talking about Bermuda. What rights do gay couples lose in Bermuda?

"Also Guilden, what right do you have to prevent gay couple being married under the eyes of God?"

I am not preventing anyone from doing anything, I am simply expressing my views and beliefs.

[Yet Another Limey on 12.01.06 at 11:05]

Guilden, sorry, too much coffee this morning, it's just that religion tends to get me worked up quite easily.

To add a less extreem example to Uncle Elvis', a wife is able to get some portion of her husband's pension on his death, as far as I know this wouldn't apply to a gay couple.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 12.01.06 at 11:11]

Uncle Elvis,

You raise a very interesting point and I never said the matter should not be addressed. I very simply pointed out my views and beliefs, which I believe I am entitled to hold and express, am I not?

Yet Another Limey,

My interpretation of the Pension Act is that just as with a life insurance policy you can name anyone you want as a beneficiary of your pension assets.

Medical insurance policy wording specifically defines a dependent, one who can be include under your coverage, as a spouse or dependent child (up to age 19 or 25 if evidence is provided the child is still a fulltime student).

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 11:14]

Guilden - See U. Elvis comment, more eloquent than mine. Right there, one example of how same sex couples are discriminated against. They do not have the same rights as the rest of us. And that is quite wrong.

[Two Cents on 12.01.06 at 11:17]

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship. Essientally the "overly religious" can translate the bible to condem anything that they disagree with / dislike.

Why don't fundamentalists organize protests and picket seafood restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores, barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell suits and dresses made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials? All of these products and services are "abominations" in Leviticus. When have you heard a preacher condemn the demonic abomination of garments that are made of mixed fabrics?

N.B Quite a bit of this info was taken from various sites, Although I agree, it is not my work.

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 11:34]

Blessed are the cheesemakers?

[Kermit F. on 12.01.06 at 11:52]

Elvis,

Also if a gay bermudian found a partner overseas, they don't have the same rights as a married couple, the expat partner can't come back, to work and live in Bermuda, as a spouse of a Bermudain.

[ace on 12.01.06 at 11:53]

I believe he was referring to all manufacturers of dairy products.

[Uncle Elvis on 12.01.06 at 12:00]

Guilden, I wasn't debating your beliefs, just pointing out examples that have to do with "When one partner dies what specific rights does the surviving partner lose?"

[Ethiops on 12.01.06 at 12:21]

I honestly don’t care about people’s beliefs as I support the idea that beliefs are a shady thing to believe in. It’s when people’s beliefs stand in the way of progress that my feathers get ruffled to the point that I’m online writing. Anyway you look at it its pretty sad ain’t it crazy, while paradoxically all gravy, if you’re a man that marries a lady and procreate babies.
And when death falls upon one, the significant other can logically control the goods obtained by them both over the years of their being together. For same sex couples it’s not the same for sure, the hassles are endless. But, obstacles keeping people apart can also push um together forever.

Religion and some religious tend to never allow people the right to their so called sins that they are so quick to remind them that have. It would seem the wondrous state of imperfection is allowed to a selected few. Religious people that don’t get it are the hardest to support imo. You’d expect more from intelligent beings but the depth of their insight and capacity of their hindsight goes as deep as tin cans.

Bermuda is a great place for marriages in general and it would be just great if we had the political balls to do such a thing and allow same sex marriages to take place.

[JJ on 12.01.06 at 12:42]

The issue of gays having the rights as heterosexuals in a marriage opens up a Pandora’s Box of possibilities. Putting aside the morality issue that bugs the god botherers, how far do you allow the rights such as preferential tax treatment for married couples? If I have a long term platonic relationship with male friend why can’t we both be considered a “couple” for certain benefits which accrue to married people. If you are going to extend them to gay couples then why not non-gay same sex couples? Where does it end?

Also, Sangrowman can you point me to the proof that homosexuality is genetic? Not saying I disagree just that I do not believe it has been proven.

[SmokingGun on 12.01.06 at 12:42]

Allowing same sex marriage is like imposing the smoking ban. Now that it's in place how many of you are really all that put out by it?

There are enough people in the world who respect the fact that just because someone is gay it doesn't mean they should be treated any differently. Maybe I'm wrong but I never thoughtb being gay had anything to do with religion. It's about humanity. If it did I would have thought it would have become a religion by now.

Hmmmm... maybe it should. Then no-one can be persecuted, even in Bermuda.

[Uncle Elvis on 12.01.06 at 13:00]

"If I have a long term platonic relationship with male friend why can’t we both be considered a “couple” for certain benefits which accrue to married people"

Um... if you get married to him, wedding, legal crap, etc. etc., then, yeah... go for it... benefits are all yours. S'the way I look at it. Good luck cruising for chicks on Friday night though. Well.. actually. Your husband can be your wingman. Not a bad idea at all!

[loki on 12.01.06 at 13:05]

"If I have a long term platonic relationship with male friend why can’t we both be considered a “couple” for certain benefits which accrue to married people."

Which is exactly what is happening in the UK with the new civil partnerships law. Non-gay platonic friends are utilizing the law, too. It's intention is not necessarily to allow 'gay marriage', per se, but to allow individuals to enter into civil partnership arrangements.

[J Starling on 12.01.06 at 13:11]

I have found in discussions here and with American friends and tourists that this question is often one of semantics. Aside from complete bigots who would send homsexuals off to concentration camps, most are okay with homosexuals having equal rights but only when one mentions marriage that a problem happens. If one says they should have a civil union, and then describe what this means, as identical to marriage but without using that word, they often agree. A rose by any other name may still be a rose but its hard for some to realise this. In Bermuda though I think we need to focus on first ensuring full secularisation, and then equal rights for homosexuals before we even begin discussing same sex civil unions. Babysteps is the key with this issue.

[Bill Akin on 12.01.06 at 13:13]

Seems to me that it all ends with the money and who gets it. (after tax )
Regards, Bill

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 13:16]

JJ - I need to research further and get back to you, but research has proved that if your mother dressed you up as a girl then you won't necceserily become gay. In other words, social conditioning has little to do with gayness. Hence, happily married fathers who come out in later life. Social conditioning has sent them down a path of heterosexuality when in fact they were gay.

The research proved conclusivly, to the annoyance of religious fundies, that homosexuality is due to a "difference" in genetics and brain makeup. Soemthing that cannot be controlled. Note I am careful not to say abnormality or fault.

Being homosexual is not a choice.

[son of a limey on 12.01.06 at 13:35]

There won't be any same sex marriage laws in Bermuda any time soon because there are too many people like Guilden M Gilbert. Neither party wants to piss off the church loonies who use the bible as a shiled for their bigotry.

[Pitts Bay on 12.01.06 at 13:36]

If I am hetrosexual and leave my estate to my spouse under my will, it passes free of estate duty on the affidavit of value.

If I homosexual and leave my estate to my "spouse", then no exemption applies.

Don't seem right, does it!!

[The Limey on 12.01.06 at 13:42]

Guilden

I believe marriage is not only about companionship but also about the procreation of life

But marriage is not necessarily about procreation. My sister-in-law and her husband have no children and have no desire to have any. Other couples, either through necessity or choice, prefer to adopt instead of procreate - something that a gay couple may also wish to do too.

To me, marriage is two things:

1. A public declaration of commitment.
2. A stable environment for the upbringing of children.

It strikes me that these are things that gay couples might want too.

As I have said in the past I do not condone discrimination of any type and the fact that I do not support same-sex marriage is not the same as discrimination

Respectfully, I disagree. By prohibiting gay couples from marrying you are witholding from them benefits that are available to straight couples. It's discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

What rights do gay couples lose in Bermuda?

The same rights that all unmarried couples lose, except gay couples have no avenue to acquire those rights. I remember watching a TV programme in the UK just before I came to Bermuda which listed some of these rights. Unfortunately I've forgotten most of them, but one that stuck in my mind is the right to decide what medical treatment your partner should receive if they cannot decide for themselves (e.g. because they are unconscious or in a coma). I imagine the same is true in Bermuda.

J Starling

If one says they should have a civil union, and then describe what this means, as identical to marriage but without using that word, they often agree.

While I don't disagree, and while I realise that civil unions may be a pragmatic way to make a marriage-like institution available to homosexuals, I am opposed to them in principle. If you believe in equal rights for gays, give them equal rights: access to the same institutions.

[Two Cents on 12.01.06 at 13:43]

"Research has proved that if your mother dressed you up as a girl then you won't necceserily become gay".

Sandgrownan that hits the nail on the head,Enviroment has nothing to do with being gay

In my experiences, I have met/known two "Cross Dressers" (for the record, I had a friend, she managed a high end NYC lingerie store). Both of these two guys couldn't have been more hetro if they tried, one was an "On Site" Construction Engineer, the other a pretty well know (in NYC)lawyer. Over drinks we discussed their cross dressing "habit" and they both told me that they had both enjoyed wearing womens lingerie since their teens, and both of these guys were hetro,

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 12.01.06 at 13:47]

Son of a Limey,

Please show me where I said the law should not be reviewed or changed. I have only expressed my personal views on the topic. So you are saying that as my views are contrary to yours I am a bigot? Do you take this position anytime someone has views that differ from yours?

Just for the record if those are your views of me you are more than entitled to hold them but understand that I have every right to hold my views and express them if I so choose and I will exercise my rights.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 12.01.06 at 13:51]

Limey,

"Respectfully, I disagree. By prohibiting gay couples from marrying you are witholding from them benefits that are available to straight couples. It's discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation."

How I am prohibiting gay couples from marrying? How am I withholding benefits from them? I am simply expressing my personal views and beliefs.

[Bill Cook on 12.01.06 at 13:51]

Should bi sexuals be allowed two marriages ?

Seems only fair as they enjoy both sexes equally and maybe believe in the sanctity of marriage and demand to equally express it.

If someone wanted to legalise his or her life long love affair with themselves should they be allowed to marry themselves ?

Recently an Israeli woman married either a Dolphin or a Porpoise now there is acceptance for you !!

[son of a limey on 12.01.06 at 13:57]

Your are a bigot Gilbert. You say you don't hold anything personally agianst gays.... but they should not be allowed to get married. You do not want society and the law to afford them the same rights as you, a straight person. It's no different from Bermudian society 60 years ago not allowing blacks into certain establishments because of their skin colour. In both cases people are not being given the same rights as the dominant group.

[Yet Another Limey on 12.01.06 at 14:05]

While I don't disagree, and while I realise that civil unions may be a pragmatic way to make a marriage-like institution available to homosexuals, I am opposed to them in principle. If you believe in equal rights for gays, give them equal rights: access to the same institutions.

Posted by The Limey on 12.01.06 at 13:42

If Bermuda were to allow gay marriage would the next move to force churches to marry them?

I'm sure most people here would immediatelty say no, but taking the usual comparison of race, could you imagine a church refusing to marry a black couple?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 12.01.06 at 14:05]

Son of a Limey,

If you are going to call me names do so under your real name. I think it is cowardice and immature to call someone a bigot while hiding behind a pen name.

However, that being said, as I said before, you are fully entitled to your views of me. If you think I will crawl up in a ball and not express my views because I am afraid of being called names I suggest you think again.

[Uncle Elvis on 12.01.06 at 14:06]

Should bi sexuals be allowed two marriages ?

Now you're asking about polygamy, which is a whole seperate issue.
No one is allowed two marriages, so it's not a right that homosexuals are seeking equality for.

If someone wanted to legalise his or her life long love affair with themselves should they be allowed to marry themselves ?

I hope you're being facetious with this one.

Recently an Israeli woman married either a Dolphin or a Porpoise...

Actually, it was a British woman, but the ceremony was in Israel.
But I'm not seeing the correlation. Are you likening homosexuality to bestiality?

[Chris Broadhurst on 12.01.06 at 14:13]

Gays should be allowed to have 'civil unions', and they should be called that, and not 'marriages'.

The notion that they should be allowed because of Bible teachings is horseshit.

[Bill Cook on 12.01.06 at 14:13]

Why should you apply hetero sexual rules or same sex rules to people who are bi sexual ?

To them its not polygamy it is the fullfillment of their total personality which is not singular but plural, sounds like bias to me.

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 14:15]

The reality is that the political leadership is afraid of the church lobby. They lack the spine to be truly progressive, all encompasing and inclusive for fear of losing votes.

Legal marriage is one thing, but forcing churches to marry gays is another. I would hope that some churches would be open and welcoming to the idea, but I realise that the more bigotted and fundy churches would have a hissy fit.

It's nonesense to think that monogamous gay couples can't have faith.

And Guilden, oh so reasonable and even handed in so many debates on this website.. it's about equal rights for all (something you have espoused many times) and now I fear you are dead wrong. You just lost my vote in the fictitious election we talked about yesterday and this isn't about party lines.

[Uncle Elvis on 12.01.06 at 14:19]

To them its not polygamy it is the fullfillment of their total personality which is not singular but plural, sounds like bias to me."

Where are you getting this from? I've never heard of any bisexuals asking for two marriages and NOT calling it polygamy. I've never heard of ANYTHING like what you are talking about. Are you just speculating, or do you have facts to back up these statements?

[Chris Broadhurst on 12.01.06 at 14:23]

The problem with the church is it changes sin to suit itself. Guilden rightly pointed out that all sin is equal.

Now, since I was previously married for about a nanosecond two decades ago, my current 15 year marriage is really just one long adulterous affair. At least if all sin was really equal it would be.

Why then should I be able to enjoy the rights of being the next of kin to my wife, when some monogomous gay couple cannot?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 12.01.06 at 14:24]

Sandrgrownan,

So in order to "get your vote" a candidate has to agree with everything you believe and hold must hold the same opinions as you? Good luck finding that candidate.

This is exactly where politicians get into problems, they try to be all things to all people, which is impossible. Also each member of the electorate wants his/her representative to hold his/her views on every topic. Now you know why I choose not to enter frontline politics.

Ask your current representative where he stands on the issue. Ask the UBP where it as a party stands on the issue. I know of a number of current UBP MPs who would not hesitate to vote against allowing same-sex marriage, should they be removed from office because of their beliefs?

Get real. We are all enetitle to our personal views and opinions, politician or otherwise.

[thisgrassman on 12.01.06 at 14:25]

I am not sure if this has been pointed out previously but how interesting is it that Alex Scott, when backed into the corner over the Tony Brannon e-mail debacle, used Oscar Wilde as a source of esoteric reference for the meaning of “looks”

Such an in depth knowledge of the works of one of the greats of late nineteenth century English literature must also have compelled Scott to understand the author’s life, as the two were inseparable.

I wonder if his homophobic church lobby realizes their Man at the top is reading seditious filth penned by a man convicted and imprisoned for two years for having a homosexual affair?

“P” is willing to maintain the status quo where gay people are still discriminated against but hypocritically uses the work of a bi-sexual author to save his own ass.

Doesn’t he have somebody on the payroll to spot such fucking obvious blunders?

[son of a limey on 12.01.06 at 14:28]

So your opinions are useless if you write on this blog not useing your real name, that's your stance. I'd say 95% percent of the people who contribute use nicknames and such. For me, in the Bermuda of 2006 its not smart to voice an opinion on this blog useing your real name, you never know who's watching. And that's all I have to say for today.

[Martin on 12.01.06 at 14:30]

Sandgrownan wrote..........

"They (the Govt)lack the spine to be truly progressive, all encompasing and inclusive for fear of losing votes".

I think this is spot on. The issue I posted is not exactly earth shattering or that fundametal per se....but it is indicative of what I see as a problem here.

It may be a sweeping generalism but, it used to be said that you can either go forward or backward - but not stand still. If you do not change - you eventually wither and die.

Isn't that really the issue here, i.e. failing to adjust as society at large adjusts and (in our case) such failure so often influenced by a single body, perhaps in this case the church.

The church is fully entitled to reject the concept of none hetrosexual marriages, though no doubt, some will adjust their thinking as time goes on. If two of the same sex, however, which to find some mechanism to formally cement their relationship (a civil union)...why should the church object?

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 14:30]

Guilden - you miss my point! You espouse equality, and yet here you are denying a segment of our community that equality. I don't forbid you your opinions, just be consistent. And it's not a black/white or UBP/PLP issue. It's about equality and you are arguing against it.

To get my vote - a candidate does have to agree with my opinions or close to them. Why else would I vote for them!?

[Full Fullish on 12.01.06 at 14:37]

Wow another hot thread...

I'm all for same sex couples getting married, however I also find something wrong with forcing a religion to marry a same sex couple. Just as I believe in the rights of the individule and the couple, I also believe in the rights of the various religions. While I don't subscribe to the beliefs of the religions of the world, I wouldn't go and say they were wrong. If I were asked, I think religion is nothing more than an ideal, unfortunantely it has been mankinds nature to believe in something throughout history and even up to present. This however is my belief and I may very well be wrong, or they may be.

What about this, if an organisation/religion/whatever you wanted to call it, was started up which welcomed in same sex marriages, hell marriages of all sorts for that matter. It would be legal in the eys of the government (Government falls under a different catagory than religion as should allow the same rights and privelidges to ALL people, Bda Govment needs a bitch slap to be reminded of this). Organisations and religions like this are started up almost daily.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support any couples right to get married, however forcing one group of people to go against their beliefs is as wrong as forcing gays to stay unrecognised at a couple in my eyes. If any churches out there welcome it, hell go for it!

[Uncle Elvis on 12.01.06 at 14:38]

"So your opinions are useless if you write on this blog not useing your real name, that's your stance

No. Personal attacks and name calling are cowardly when done from behind a pen name. THAT is his stance.
Throw out your opinions all you want, but if you want the attacks to be personal, be a man and make them FULLY personal by coming out from behind your nom-de-plume.

Besides that, why is it not smart to voice an opinion using your real name? I use a pen-name, but my brilliantly crafted disguise is pierced in about two seconds. I've also spouted some potentially subversive stuff on this blog. I've never had ANYTHING come back to haunt me.

[Bill Cook on 12.01.06 at 14:42]

Just because you have never heard of any bi sexuals wanting two marriages does not mean it has never happened or never will.

You miss the whole point which is freedom of expression not being selective, you want neat little pockets that fit your mind set perhaps rather than face the reality that marriage if it goes outside convention the door is opened for all others to be accorded the same rights and priveleges in their pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What if two transexuals wanted to marry each other ?

Why should we care as long as they are happy and harming no one else ?

[Uncle Elvis on 12.01.06 at 14:42]

"...I also find something wrong with forcing a religion to marry a same sex couple."

No one is asking for this. No one is saying "HEY, Catholics. We're here, we're queer and we're getting married in your church, whether you like it or not!"

All people are asking for is the right to be legally and publicly seen as someone's husband or wife... someone's family... without being insulted by calling it a "Civil Union" or anything other than what it is. A marriage.

[JJ on 12.01.06 at 14:43]

Guilden wrote:”How I am prohibiting gay couples from marrying? How am I withholding benefits from them? I am simply expressing my personal views and beliefs”.
Surely Guilden by supporting the current policy, for the purposes of this debate; you are doing just that. You can’t hold a position that agrees with current policy and then turn around and say the above. Why bother joining the debate at all?
I too am surprised at GG’s opinion on this one. I would never have guessed he was against gay union.

[Chris Broadhurst on 12.01.06 at 14:46]

FF. You can't even force religion to marry a hetero couple.

Since, as I said before, I was married briefly in the 80s, when it came to marrying again, not one but two men of the cloth refused to participate since I was 'not pure'.

We had to find someone more open minded. The same will go for gays I imagine.

[Uncle Elvis on 12.01.06 at 14:53]

So it WAS just speculation. Ok.. Just checking.

You never did answer whether you were likening homosexuality to bestiality with the Dolphin Wedding story.

"What if two transexuals wanted to marry each other ?

Why should we care as long as they are happy and harming no one else ?"

Exactly. Why SHOULD we care? Who are they hurting? How is this bad for us, as a society?
(Actually, if a post-op M to F married a post-op F to M, there is nothing illegal about that at all! Men and women, baby!)

Speaking of...

"I believe marriage is not only about companionship but also about the procreation of life

By this logic, men who are sterile should not be allowed to marry. That's right... car accident took your balls? Testicular cancer took away the "two veg"? Nope.. no marriage for you.

Sorry, lady, you had an emergency hystorectomy? Fuck you. You can't get married.

OH! Here's one. Someone close to me had a vasectomy recently. He has three glorious kids, but, because of the operation, he can no longer "plant his seed". Should he be forced to give up his rights to his wife's medical treatment? Should he have to give up his green card to work in the states? Non-procreating bastard.

For that matter, if marriage is about procreation, then elderly people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Post-menopausal straight women should be banned from marrying anyone, right? OOOH! Erectile disfunction. Can't get it up, grandpa? Tough shit. No wedding bells on your horizon.

Does that sound fair? Come on.

[Uncle Elvis on 12.01.06 at 14:55]

"...since I was 'not pure'.

Yeah, but that was 'cuz they've seen your act!

[Chris Broadhurst on 12.01.06 at 14:57]

......true.

At least I'm not an Elvis Impersonator.

:-)

[Ethiops on 12.01.06 at 15:01]

Hypocrisy is in the air at any given moment when it comes to the church lot. The church shouldn’t even be allowed to marry people in the first place. Wouldn’t it great if we could strip them of that right? I mean all they can do is offer you an exoteric relationship with a fictitious character that no one can prove ever lived. Politicians are pathetically shook when it comes to talking to the men of cloth and drivel.

Zero tolerence and even less acceptance is all they’ve ever had to offer. Petrified of humanity, ashamed of their own humanness, too high off playing god in the affairs of others!

Stand in the way of love and we will smoke them all with an intellect and a savoir faire…

The fact we’re all here chatting away is proof that seeds are planted and progress is sure to be a future harvest at some point.

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 15:12]

Oh Ethiops and Elvis.. how true and LOL. There's about as much evidence for God as there is for the tooth fairy. My imaginary friend is bigger and better than yours! Religious hypocrisy cracks me up and this issue is one of those where the thumpers get lost in the logic. And politicians fall for it.

[Reg on 12.01.06 at 15:19]

Ethiops, couldn't agree more, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem ;)

[Puddin' Man on 12.01.06 at 15:25]

Romans Chapter 1 and 2 condemn same sex relations, adultery, lust, etc. It covers the entire spectrum, and pretty much treats them with the same level of disgust.

Personally I think there are far too many signs that a person could be having same sex relations for a number of reasons. Some born in the wrong skin, some who are confused and some who just like sex any which way they can. Logically I do not believe that people are supposed to have sex with the same sex, but I am strongly against those who try to bash gay people or cast homosexuality as the worst of all sins. There are just too many questions for one to demonstrate hate towards people who participate in same sex acts.

So I can sympathise. Same sex marriage - I cannot think of a logical reason to say 'no' although I generally disagree with it. I would probably abstain from such a vote, and leave it up to the individual. Each person will have to answer for their actions, so I really don't see the point in singling out people who have same sex relations. I think that a promiscuous/adulterous hetero stands a greater chance a facing god's wrath than a gay person who remains faithful.

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 15:26]

Where you from? Eh? Conk city?

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 15:27]

God's wrath? Give me break Puddin' Man.

[Bill Cook on 12.01.06 at 15:30]

Man and Woman perhaps but NO BABY !!

Being Sterile does not preclude getting a hard on and screwing if and when the op. presents itself, in fact a lot of those Eunuchs may have been having a ball without any if you know what I mean.

If you want Gay marriage to have a special provision but exclude others just how fair is that ?

It seems that the current trend is living together without marriage anyway why is it so important to go to such lengths when it should be about love I presume and not ceremony ??

[Chris Broadhurst on 12.01.06 at 15:32]

The Bible itself is, at best, a repeatedly edited, second hand version of the word of God.

Basing any laws on quotations from it is a load of Bollocks.

[student on 12.01.06 at 15:37]

Biblical references about homosexuality: there are more than just the OT - read the Bible and find out for yourself.

2 Corinthians 6:9 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders." NIV

Romans 1:26-27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

because of this CLEAR statement in the Bible Christian churches should not be forced to perform the ceremony

and for the above reasons and those of benefiting society the marriage shouldn't be allowed at all

- for the same reasons that divorce is unhealthy for children - and that it is not natural!

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 15:38]

Bill - men and women living together have common law status after x years. Homosexual couples don't.

[Chris Broadhurst on 12.01.06 at 15:40]

....because of this "clear statement" in the Bible - every last person I know is already going to hell!

So what's the difference?

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 15:42]

To add to CB's comment, religion is at best a point of view, at worst a myth. Anyone with an ounce of crtical thought would not allow the church to dictate reason. In this case, the church is so way off base it's....unchristian!

[Bill Cook on 12.01.06 at 15:50]

Sandy,,

Then its about time they did and ANY others who choose to share their lives together,my concern also is full protection of childrens rights.

[student on 12.01.06 at 15:50]

ahh no no no my friend - see we all deserve to go to hell - that's the whole point of the matter. we are all sinners - we are proud, liars, we lust... we ALL deserve to go to hell - hence CHRIST's death on the cross - and the forgiveness of sins that HE offers if we simply ask for it - then ANYONE can be accepted into Heaven - read it for yourself and be open before shutting down your own mind so quickly - if it's true- it's heaven for eternity - at if it's a construct of man,- a life well lived.

on the other hand : if it IS true and you reject- - an eternity in hell.

and I truly believe that God loves and is willing to offer his forgiveness to ALL of us - the proud, the homosexuals, the heterosexuals in adultry, the liars, the cheaters, EVERYONE

[Yet Another Limey on 12.01.06 at 15:51]

Student, we can all quote various bits of the bible to say anything.

Now lets go and kill all the abusive teenagers:

Lev 20.9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Ex. 21.17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death

Matt. 15.4 For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

Mark. 7.10 For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death

[Chris Broadhurst on 12.01.06 at 15:53]

If God is going to forgive everyone, then why not let gays get married like everyone else?

You say its not natural - well neither is marriage itself. Marriage is a man made thing.

Perhaps it should be banned entirely.

[Uncle Elvis on 12.01.06 at 15:56]

"At least I'm not an Elvis Impersonator"

Who says I'm an impersonator? Hmmm? Maybe I really AM Elvis! At least in my mind...

"Being Sterile does not preclude getting a hard on and screwing if and when the op. presents itself, in fact a lot of those Eunuchs may have been having a ball without any if you know what I mean."

So.. um... yeah.

Neither does being gay. We're not talking about having sex. We're talking about procreation. Being sterile DOES, in fact, preclude procreation.

Speaking of which, shouldn't condoms for married folks be illegal, too? Since it's all about procreation.

And as for Eunuchs... historically, they got the chop before puberty or adolescence, so their sex-drive was pretty much non-existant.

If you want Gay marriage to have a special provision but exclude others just how fair is that ?"

Wait... what? Who's being excluded? Who's... what? I don't get what you mean here...

It seems that the current trend is living together without marriage anyway why is it so important to go to such lengths when it should be about love I presume and not ceremony ??

It's not about that. It's about legal rights and not being insulted by the society they live in.

"Oh Ethiops and Elvis.. how true and LOL. There's about as much evidence for God as there is for the tooth fairy."

Wait... were you referring to the bit about non-procreation with regards to me? I never said anything about God in my stuff. I'm not THAT crazy.

"...because of this CLEAR statement in the Bible Christian churches should not be forced to perform the ceremony..."

Did I stutter? No-one. Is. Asking. For. Churches. To. Be. Forced. To. Perform. The. Ceremony.

"...those of benefiting society..."

Exactly what benefits are we talking about? How is stopping people who love each other from marrying benefitting society?

"...and that it is not natural!"
Wait. Which is not natural? Divorce? That's a whole 'nother argument.
Homosexuality? Um... why do you say it's not natural? Just curious on this one.

[Linda on 12.01.06 at 15:57]

Same sex marriage should not be allowed. Keep it behind closed doors. If one is born gay, they are born with a deformity. Accept it along with its limitations. If one chooses a gay lifestyle, accept the consequences. If one were born blind, they would not be allowed to get employment as a driving instructor, human rights, or equal rights don't always apply. That's part of the free worlds problems these days, there are so many damned rights, there aren't any wrongs anymore. Next thing someone will want to marry their bloody poodle.

[Puddin' Man on 12.01.06 at 15:58]

I find it amazing that most non-believers are just as intolerant of believers as most believers are intolerant of non-believers. Who is right? Well you can't prove God doesn't exist any more than you can prove that he does. So get off your high horse about tolerance, why don'tcha?

[lickinalong on 12.01.06 at 15:59]

For well over 1000 years marriage in the western world has always had a religious base. Marriage officers were always ministers or priests and marriage always occured in church. It is only recently that marriage has also moved out of the churches and into the registrar's office as part of the secularisation of the western world. So for better or worse marriage has been first and foremost a religious institution and only latterly a secular, state institution.

Not so long ago marriage did not confer huge benefits to the female. In fact as recently as 60 years ago, women in Bermuda became pretty much of a chattel to their husbands. Their assets would de facto, be taken over by their husbands and there was no way for them to get out of marriage (divorce only came to Bermuda in the late 1940s). Over the last 50 years there have been huge changes in women's rights finally conferring on marriage certain rights and obligations. So it is not surprising that now gay people want the same opportunities that marriage confers.

If you agree with me that marriage in our community has its origins in Christian religion and if you recognise that many Christian religions have difficulty accepting the homosexual lifestyle, then why would you as a gay man or woman want to embrace an institution such as marriage? The only reason I can see is because it confers on you certain rights. So the real thing that gay people should want is not marriage but some other institution that confers on them the same rights and opportunities as marriage.

I think the battle for gay marriage has been a real mistake. The battle should be for a new institution such as civil unions. Leave the issue of marriage to the churches where it historically belongs.

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 16:00]

Linda - I assume that's tongue in cheek? Which church do you go to?

[Chris Broadhurst on 12.01.06 at 16:02]

Pud. You can have an imaginery friend if you like. My daughter had one when she was about 5 and it was fine by me. I just don't think that the laws of the land should be affected by what you say your friend would think about it.

[Uncle Elvis on 12.01.06 at 16:03]

"If one is born gay, they are born with a deformity"

WHAT? How are you coming up with THIS brilliant piece of logic? How are gay people deformed?
Jesus.

Then comes the old "Gays are like animal fuckers" bestiality argument. Nice.

[student on 12.01.06 at 16:03]

Puddin' Man - excellent point about tolerance and proving the non-existance of God!

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 16:06]

Puddin Man - wrong, I'm very tolerant of "believers", it's just when they influence politics through their irrational rantings that I get annoyed.

Lickinalong - wrong too, we've all moved on, we know being gay isn't a choice, or a lifestyle, it's a fact. There are two things here, one is recognition under the law for gay couples and by extension gaining of the same rights afforded to hetro couples. Second, if a gay couple are believers, then why shouldn't their commitment be recognised in the eyes of the tooth fairy? Society has matured, why won't the church mature along with it?

[Combat Banker on 12.01.06 at 16:07]

Sandgrown,

I am all for allowing two loving monogamous people getting married first of all.

WAY back up in the posts: In terms of Homosexuality & Genetics...

For the Record, the idea that the genetics of Homosexuality is like an ON/OFF switch is actually a fallacy and pop-culture myth. It is instead a genetic predispositon, and has environmental co-factors that likely influence its expression as a 'Phenotype'.

A tangent from the discussion, but a pet peeve. This myth reinforces the incorrect pseudo-science idea permeating modern society that genetics predetermine absolutely everything about an individual, and that you are doomed from the start. Not that 'Gayness' is doom, I'm talking more like Type II Diabetes and Obesity here. Environment and your own free will have a hand in many things.

[Yet Another Limey on 12.01.06 at 16:08]

Pudding Man: "I find it amazing that most non-believers are just as intolerant of believers as most believers are intolerant of non-believers."

Too true, as a great man once said 'There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch'

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 16:10]

Combat - agreed to a point - but it's not a choice, that's my point and therefore you shouldn't be discriminated against as a result.

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 16:11]

Yet another - as I posted earlier "Puddin Man - wrong, I'm very tolerant of "believers", it's just when they influence politics through their irrational rantings that I get annoyed."

[Combat Banker on 12.01.06 at 16:16]

Sandgrown - Defintely. If you're Gay, well.. you're Gay. It's a reality you have to deal with, with all the choicces that must come with it. But stating that there is a definable genetic locus, and thereby a test for 'Gayness', or obesity, or intelligence, leads down a slippery Orwellian slope.

Anyway, as I said, pet peeve. Agree your other points.

[Puddin' Man on 12.01.06 at 16:19]

"Pud. You can have an imaginery friend if you like."

Like I said, atheists can be just as bad as bible thumpers. I have no need to insult you for being an atheist. I don't see you as less of a person for being an atheist, I have nothing against you for being an atheist, and I don't seek to restrain your atheist point of view. But keep on being intolerant while believing you are the enlightened one. Arrogance amuses me.

[William Patterson Cook on 12.01.06 at 16:19]

Linda,
if they can marry a Dolphin or a Porpoise the Poodle should not be a problem !

Who sets the standards or limitations ?

Uncle I want you to be best man at my marriage to my Parrot CLANCY we are both male.

Hows about it ? we are both too old for sex but we quarrel a lot like most married people.

[Draft Dodger on 12.01.06 at 16:21]

Live and let live. If someone guy wants to marry another girl, another guy or a ping pong ball let them go to it as far as I am concerned. My personal opinion may be that I agree with what they are doing, I may disagree or I may just not care but as long as they do not hurt anyone else by there actions good luck to them, who am I to stop them.

[Puddin' Man on 12.01.06 at 16:24]

"Yet another - as I posted earlier "Puddin Man - wrong, I'm very tolerant of "believers", it's just when they influence politics through their irrational rantings that I get annoyed."

You know, I bet there isn't a single bible thumper who feels this way.

[Chris Broadhurst on 12.01.06 at 16:25]

Pud. You can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care - and I respect you for it.

But quoting from a questionable book and using that info in writing laws is ignorant in the extreme.

What about all of the people who are of non Christian religions?

You know nothing of my beliefs, or lack of, and I never mentioned the "A" word. I'd appreciate it if you do not put me into any category. That my friend was arrogant.

[Uncle Elvis on 12.01.06 at 16:26]

Bill, you're stuck on this animal thing.
The dolphin thing is ridiculous and the lady should be ashamed of herself. She is either seriously deranged or a fame-whore.
I do not, nor have I on this or any other board condoned marrying animals.

For you to keep on about this seems to indicate that you consider bestiality to be along the same lines as homosexuality. You've dodged the question before. Will you answer it now? IS this what you think?

oh, and if you're too old for sex, you shouldn't be allowed to marry. Procreation and all that. *grin*

[lickinalong on 12.01.06 at 16:27]

Sandgrownan,

You are on vary shakey ground if you are suggesting that the state should mandate the beliefs of churches and religions. If a religion chooses not to marry gay couples as a matter of belief that is their right. As far as I am concerned a "religious marriage" should not confer any rights. It should be a recognition that in the beliefs of that religion the union has been in some way sanctified. No more, no less.

The problem is that the now secular state has tried to take over the institution of marriage and in the process confer certain rights to those who are married. I say let's truly separate state and church on this matter. Let the state confer rights to all unions through civil unions and let the churches confer whatever they wish to confer through the institution of marriage. Let's separate the two as they should have been all along. As Jesus once said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caeser"s and unto God that which is God's." In my limited reading of the Bible, I have seen no instance where rights are conferred on those who are married rather the Bible only talks of responsibilities conferred by marriage. The outlook and motivations of church and state are quite different on this matter so shouldn't the label used to describe them be different?

[Bill Cook on 12.01.06 at 16:31]

Uncle I am not dodging it because I am not too swift on the Beasty stuff and are Dolphins and Porpoise's beasts ?

Sounds a bit fishy to me that does and I am not sure just how all that works out so I will get off that line right now.

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 16:31]

Lickalong - you miss my point. The state shouldn't be dictated to by the church, not the other way round - I too believe in a secular state. What I would hope is that there are some churches progressive enough to marry gay couples in the eyes of God, recognise their love and commitment and all it entails. I don't doubt that the most irrational and bigoted churches will ever change their views in my lifetime.

The state has control because marriage confers certain legal rights above and beyond the church.

[Uncle Elvis on 12.01.06 at 16:32]

Chris, I wasn't going to get into this. I swear I wasn't.

But you're right. What ABOUT non-Christians?
According to the "Only way to heaven is through Jesus" crowd, all those Muslims (who, by the way, believe in the same god as you Christians...), Hindus, Buddhists, etc, etc, are going to burn in hell.

So why bother pushing God's law on this one issue, if it's not going to do any good anyway?

[Draft Dodger on 12.01.06 at 16:36]

Lickinalong,

By your rationale I would not be married but would be "civil unioned" as I was married in the Office of the Registrar. Just curious if this is the intent. I wanted to marry my wife just did not feel the need to do it in front of 150 freeloaders and an invisible man.

[lickinalong on 12.01.06 at 16:42]

Sand,
It is really up to the churches to make that decision. That is what freedom of religion is all about. I believe that you would find some churches that would sanctify a gay civil union through a marriage ceremony. A few but not many.

The problem is that the state has poached the concept of marriage from the churches and is now using it for other purposes that the churches object to. Let the churches and religions own the term marriage. For them it is a term full of history and deep meaning. Instead require all couples that want meaningful rights of union to go through the process of getting their civil union registered. Big deal. Everyone get's their human rights and churches can still sanctifiy those unions, if they so wish through a marriage ceremony.

Looks like "win win" to me.

[Full Fullish on 12.01.06 at 16:43]

Linda - "Same sex marriage should not be allowed. Keep it behind closed doors. If one is born gay, they are born with a deformity. Accept it along with its limitations."

Nice attitude....thank God us "Free world" thinking folks believe in living beyond any percieved limitations, or people "with deformities" would be left up on mountain tops to die just as they did 1000's of years ago. I hope you're never prejudiced against for being the way you are one day.

[Chris Broadhurst on 12.01.06 at 16:43]

Elvis, I agree. Why should God (at least the Christian God) be involved in any of our law making? It forces Christian beliefs on everyone.

Incidentally, God is Bermudian you know.

He showed up for work for just 6 days, and hasn't been seen since!

[lickinalong on 12.01.06 at 16:44]

Draft Dodger,

Yup, you'd be CUed.

[sandgrownan on 12.01.06 at 16:51]

lickinalong - agreed - except the church doesn't own the term marriage. Not any more..and it needs to build a bridge and get over it. The churches have every right to make the call, my opinion is that those that do marry gay couples are inclusive and progressive and those that don't are just plain wrong. my opinion that's all.

You know I suspect those that marry in civil ceremonies (perhaps are non-believers) still see the institution of marriage with great reverance and full of meaning. Otherwise why would they do it since common law rights would exist anyway. They do it to make a public statement about their love and commitment, and thset hat believe should be able to do it in (a) church.

[J Starling on 12.01.06 at 16:53]

Semantics again. I don't see the difference between a civil union and a marriage provided the only difference is the name. I agree that the term marriage, though applicable to both in general terms, is technically in reference to religious ceremonies, and so, yes, my wife and I would technically be in a civil union. It is impossible in my opinion to force a church or minister to marry someone against their church's laws, and thats why I support an equal rights civil union bill. By this logic, if a church is willing to perform the ceremony, then by all means call it a marriage. They are all the same to me, except one name is more likely to draw the ire of religious people more than the other.

[lickinalong on 12.01.06 at 17:06]

Let's get pragmatic. A large percentage of Bermudians go to church and are influenced by their religious beliefs and experiences. A large percentage of the churches disagree vehemently with gay marriage. Elections may be won and lost on this one issue. On the other hand, gay couples deserve to be granted civil rights similar to straight couples. What is more important, securing those rights or using the term marriage?

Uncle Elvis hang on to your sideburns. It is what it is. We are talking marriage, therefore, it follows there will be a sexual relationship. My logic is man go with woman, woman go with man. There's a front "door" and "back door" and we all know what emits from the back door, and without a "key", you can't properly enter either door. Don't belong to any particular church, and Fullfullish....already been there.