[URL="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bermuda-gay-marriage-repeal-legislation-same-sex-world-first-lgbt-rights-latest-news-a8200361.html"]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bermuda-gay-marriage-repeal-legislation-same-sex-world-first-lgbt-rights-latest-news-a8200361.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]Bermuda has become the first country in the world to repeal a law allowing same-sex couples to marry.
The island’s governor, John Rankin, approved a bill on Wednesday that reverses a Supreme Court ruling last year authorising gay marriage.
Critics have branded the move by the British Overseas Territory an unprecedented rollback of civil rights.
But minister of home affairs, Walton Brown, said the legislation signed by Mr Rankin seeks to balance opposition to same-sex marriage on the socially conservative island while complying with European court rulings that ensure recognition and protection for same-sex couples in the territory.
Bermuda's Senate and House of Assembly passed the legislation by wide margins in December and a majority of voters opposed same-sex marriage in a referendum. The island now only has a law allowing domestic partnerships for gay couples.
"The act is intended to strike a fair balance between two currently irreconcilable groups in Bermuda, by restating that marriage must be between a male and a female while at the same time recognising and protecting the rights of same-sex couples," Mr Brown said.[/QUOTE]
[quote]But minister of home affairs, Walton Brown, said the legislation signed by Mr Rankin seeks to balance opposition to same-sex marriage on the socially conservative island while complying with European court rulings that ensure recognition and protection for same-sex couples in the territory.[/quote]
Um, mister Brown? That implies being opposed to same-sex marriage is a valid opinion worth considering. Just saying.
Seriously, go get fucked.
If the article's correct in saying that domestic partners have equal legal rights, it makes me wonder why not just get rid of marriage at the state level.
Sure, you'd be able to go to church and call that marriage. But when you or the church files the paperwork, it's just another domestic partnership or civil union. "Marriage" can remain "between a man and a woman" for people who really care.
If marketed probably it may be possible to satisfy both sides, but eh I'm probably wrong on that.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53119630]If the article's correct in saying that domestic partners have equal legal rights, it makes me wonder why not just get rid of marriage at the state level.
Sure, you'd be able to go to church and call that marriage. But when you or the church files the paperwork, it's just another domestic partnership or civil union. "Marriage" can remain "between a man and a woman" for people who really care.
If marketed probably it may be possible to satisfy both sides, but eh I'm probably wrong on that.[/QUOTE]
honestly, this.
If at the paperwork and code level 'marriage' and 'domestic partner/civil union' are [I]exactly the same[/I] then there is no reason to have this law in the first place. Nobody is going to stop you and say 'no no no, you two aren't married, you're in a civil union'
Thats been the big issue over here iirc, is that civil unions and domestic partner ships are like marriage lite, it literally does not have the same government code in place for them.
Leave marriage/'holy matrimony' for churches, let them do that at their discretion. 90% of same-sex couples are literally just looking for government entities to equally recognize them as a legally binding familial unit, and to get all of the government benefits it entitles them to.
The only people opposed to gay marriage are fucking assholes.
[editline]9th February 2018[/editline]
Many of the people in favor technically are as well.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53119630]If the article's correct in saying that domestic partners have equal legal rights, it makes me wonder why not just get rid of marriage at the state level.
Sure, you'd be able to go to church and call that marriage. But when you or the church files the paperwork, it's just another domestic partnership or civil union. "Marriage" can remain "between a man and a woman" for people who really care.
If marketed probably it may be possible to satisfy both sides, but eh I'm probably wrong on that.[/QUOTE]
This is pretty much my stance on marriage.
Government should not be a participant in it at all in any shape, way, or form. The [I]only[/I] reason they are, at least in the US, is because of tax benefits in which I think they should leave it as "a union" and let the couple decide to call it a marriage or whatever.
And get rid of marriage licenses while we're at it. It's a stupid concept to have to ask the government permission and to pay a fee to get wedded.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53119630]If the article's correct in saying that domestic partners have equal legal rights, it makes me wonder why not just get rid of marriage at the state level.
Sure, you'd be able to go to church and call that marriage. But when you or the church files the paperwork, it's just another domestic partnership or civil union. "Marriage" can remain "between a man and a woman" for people who really care.
If marketed probably it may be possible to satisfy both sides, but eh I'm probably wrong on that.[/QUOTE]
only issue i can see is same sex couples that are religious would probabky feel really disenfranchised
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;53120322]only issue i can see is same sex couples that are religious would probabky feel really disenfranchised[/QUOTE]
Maybe they should find a god that accepts them for who they are.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53119936]This is pretty much my stance on marriage.
Government should not be a participant in it at all in any shape, way, or form. The [I]only[/I] reason they are, at least in the US, is because of tax benefits in which I think they should leave it as "a union" and let the couple decide to call it a marriage or whatever.
And get rid of marriage licenses while we're at it. It's a stupid concept to have to ask the government permission and to pay a fee to get wedded.[/QUOTE]
that was the entire problem in the US. Pretty much nobody would ever extend equal rights to civil unions so they had to make same sex marriage the law. If right wingnuts had just stopped whining and been responsible they'd still have their sacred marriage and same sex couples would have equal rights
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53119630]If the article's correct in saying that domestic partners have equal legal rights, it makes me wonder why not just get rid of marriage at the state level.
Sure, you'd be able to go to church and call that marriage. But when you or the church files the paperwork, it's just another domestic partnership or civil union. "Marriage" can remain "between a man and a woman" for people who really care.
If marketed probably it may be possible to satisfy both sides, but eh I'm probably wrong on that.[/QUOTE]
One of the main bullshit arguments against same-sex marriage is that it's "redefining marriage" after thousands of years. I can't imagine that literally abolishing marriage would placate anyone
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;53120322]only issue i can see is same sex couples that are religious would probabky feel really disenfranchised[/QUOTE]
I don't think church's are forced to perform gay marriages even now, so nothing would actually change.
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53120407]One of the main bullshit arguments against same-sex marriage is that it's "redefining marriage" after thousands of years. I can't imagine that literally abolishing marriage would placate anyone[/QUOTE]
Technically doing this is making marriage even [I]more[/I] traditional in a way, since after rome, and until strong nation-states, it was mostly just handled by the catholic church.
[QUOTE=Sableye;53120403]that was the entire problem in the US. Pretty much nobody would ever extend equal rights to civil unions so they had to make same sex marriage the law. If right wingnuts had just stopped whining and been responsible they'd still have their sacred marriage and same sex couples would have equal rights[/QUOTE]
The thing that really pisses me off about that bunch is how they advocate keeping marriage by bible standards, yet literally from the words of Christ are "do not get divorced" and I have yet to hear anyone advocating for banning divorces in the US.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53121391]The thing that really pisses me off about that bunch is how they advocate keeping marriage by bible standards, yet literally from the words of Christ are "do not get divorced" and I have yet to hear anyone advocating for banning divorces in the US.[/QUOTE]
And the fact that a biblical family was defined as The head of the house and his wive[B]s[/B] and concubine[B]s[/B]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;53121595]And the fact that a biblical family was defined as The head of the house and his wive[B]s[/B] and concubine[B]s[/B][/QUOTE]
The Bible also says you are allowed to take slaves of a neighbouring tribe, so Bermudans won't mind if some Americans stage a raid called Spring Break and kidnap a few of their hotties on the way home, yeah? :v:
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53121855]The Bible also says you are allowed to take slaves of a neighbouring tribe, so Bermudans won't mind if some Americans stage a raid called Spring Break and kidnap a few of their hotties on the way home, yeah? :v:[/QUOTE]
Biblical panty raid? Where do I sign up?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
