1165+ web files, a regularly updated Gazetteer, overall an in-depth description of our island's internally self-governing British Overseas Territory 900 miles north of the Caribbean, 600 miles east of North Carolina, USA. With accommodation options, airlines, airport, actors, actresses, aviation, banks, beaches, Bermuda Dollar, Bermuda Government, Bermuda-incorporated businesses and companies including insurers and reinsurers, Bermudians, books and publications, bridges and causeway, charities, churches, citizenship by Status, City of Hamilton, commerce, communities, credit cards, cruise ships, cuisine, currency, disability accessibility, Devonshire Parish, districts, Dockyard, economy, education, employers, employment, environment, executorships, fauna, ferries, flora, former military bases, forts, gardens, geography, getting around, golf, guest houses, highways, history, historic properties, Hamilton, House of Assembly, housing, hotels, immigration, import duties, internet access, islands, laws, legal system and legislators, main roads, marriages, media, members of parliament, money, motor vehicles, municipalities, music and musicians, newcomers, newspaper, media, organizations, parks, parishes, Paget, Pembroke, performing artists, residents, pensions, political parties, postage stamps, public holidays, public transportation, railway trail, real estate, registries of aircraft and ships, religions, Royal Naval Dockyard, Sandys, senior citizens, Smith's, Somerset Village, Southampton, St. David's Island, St George's, Spanish Point, Spittal Pond, sports, taxes, telecommunications, time zone, traditions, tourism, Town of St. George, Tucker's Town, utilities, water sports, Warwick, weather, wildlife, work permits.
By Keith Archibald Forbes (see About Us) exclusively for Bermuda Online
A happy Bride and Bridegroom after a Bermuda wedding, photo Bermuda Tourism
Traditional Bermuda wedding cake
Note that Bermuda has Bermudian (local, not UK or American or Canadian) laws on marriage and divorce. Bermuda is a foreign country, not part of USA, not part of United Kingdom, not part of Canada.
For visitors or residents, Bermuda is a lovely place in which to get married or join in a Domestic Partnership, whether you opt for a civil wedding in the Registrar's Office (see below) or, if a local, a wedding before a minister in church complete with all the frills.
2017. December 9. Legislation to replace same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships was passed in the House of Assembly last night. The Domestic Partnership Act 2017 was passed following a five-hour debate after a vote in which 24 MPs supported the Bill being reported to the House, while ten opposed it.
Bermuda marriages for residents and non-residents are under the Bermuda Marriage Act 1944 and Marriage Amendment Act 2016, and as further amended, if on a Bermuda-registered cruise ship, the (Bermuda) Maritime Marriage Act 1999 and Marriage Amendment Act 2002. All certificates of a Bermuda marriage are issued by the Registrar - see below - for all island marriages, whether civil, religious, church or ship. American, British, Canadian and other consular officers cannot perform marriages individually or at their consulates. But if required, American and other consular officers may authenticate Bermuda marriage documents, for a fee. Bermuda does not have UK-style (England & Wales) civil annulment laws. Bermuda marriages are legally valid in the United States and elsewhere.
Domestic partnerships ceremonies can place between both same-sex and opposite sex couples. Civil unions became an option after legislation was enacted in June and four people have been appointed to officiate over the ceremonies. Three of Bermuda’s four domestic partnership officers were appointed in November 2018 after an advert invited members of the public to apply for the roles. They include Kendaree Burgess, executive director of the Bermuda Chamber of Commerce; Derek Fisher, a personal trainer; and Alex Potts QC, a partner at law firm Kennedys. The Minister of Home Affairs approves the appointment of domestic partnership officers. An advert for applications said: “Interested persons must be of good standing and be well versed with the contents of the Domestic Partnership Act, 2018.” The Registrar-General and assistant Registrar-General can also officiate at domestic partnership ceremonies.
A Bermuda Moongate wedding is a unique piece of Bermudiana
Application, eligibility for and basic costs of a Bermuda civil (not religious) marriage
The Registry General of the Bermuda Government handles all genuine requests for birth, marriage and death certificates and any replacements needed of them. The address is Government Administration Building, 30 Parliament Street, Hamilton HM 12, Bermuda. Telephone (441) 297-7707 (or 7709). Contact it directly - not via this website - for any questions and the fees payable in Bermuda or United States dollars. For more information on fees associated with civil marriage ceremonies visit https://www.gov.bm/content/apply-marriage-licence). A period of 14 days must elapse from the date of receipt of the notice by the Registry before the Registry General may issue the license to marry. Parties to the intended marriage are not required to be resident during this time. The license to marry may be issued on or after the 15th day provided no formal objection has been raised to the intended marriage. The license to marry must be issued within three months of the receipt of the notice by the Registrar General and remains valid for three months from the date of issue. Once the couple has the marriage license, the ceremony can be performed. Airmail to Bermuda often takes from 8-12 days from Canada, United Kingdom and USA. Minors must have notarized written consent of both parents or the surviving parent or legal guardian. A space is provided on the form for this purpose. A marriage will not be performed if either or both parties are under 16 years at the time of the ceremony. Names and residential addresses of both applicants must always be shown in full. This submitted notice will result in a wedding license valid for three months. You or a designated person may pick up this license at the Registrar office.
More than 60 percent of all notices of marriage in Bermuda show couples living together in North America or Europe at specific addresses before the ceremony.
If you or your spouse-to-be have been married before, you must send well before you arrive official copies of final divorce decrees for each marriage of each person. Or either or both of you are a widow or widower, please send a copy of a death certificate. In both cases they must be from the relevant office of a particular state, province or county and country that issued the divorce or death certificate. Appropriate checks are made from Bermuda with federal and state or provincial authorities in the USA and elsewhere to determine if proposed marriages are bigamous and/or are being undertaken out of the USA, etc. to try to conceal marriage disclosures from Social Security or tax authorities.
Most weddings for visitors are civil weddings. In June 2016 new local legislation was introduced to allow them to take place at any suitable venue in Bermuda. Until then, the Marriage Amendment Act restricted couples seeking a non-religious marriage to perform the ceremony at the Office of the Registrar General in Hamilton. Civil marriages account for roughly one in four marriages (23.2 per cent) on the island. Any bizarre or inappropriate locations would likely be vetoed by the Registrar to ensure the dignity of a ceremony is not usurped in the process. Most occur at the Regisrar General's Office but since September 2016 marriages contracted before the Registrar General can now be held at alternate approved locations which include Admiralty House Park, Arboretum, Astwood Park, Blue Hole Hill Park, Botanical Gardens, Chaplin Bay, Church Bay, Clocktower Mall Dockyard, Devonshire Bay Park, Elbow Beach (the public beach as accessed from Tribe Road 4B Paget), Ferry Point Park, Fort St. Catherine beach, Great Head Park, Gibbs Hill Lighthouse Park, Horseshoe Bay, John Smith’s Bay, Jobson’s Cove, Scaur Hill Fort Park, Shelly Bay beach, Somerset Long Bay, Spanish Point Park, Stonehole Bay, St. David’s Lighthouse Park, Tobacco Bay, Victualling Yard in Dockyard, and Warwick Long Bay. Parties wishing to contract marriage in the presence of the Registrar for any of these venues must submit the requisite fee to the Registry General, at least 14 days prior to the proposed date of marriage. The fee is in addition to the fee which is required to be submitted with the Notice of Intended Marriage Application form. The onus is on the parties to be wed to obtain written permission from the owner or occupier of the venue (eg Wedco or Ministry of Public Works) and notify the Registrar accordingly of the date. The time will be confirmed by Registry General staff. In addition parties are responsible for arranging the logistics of set-up and any other features related to the wedding. The Registry General Office will only be responsible for providing a table, chair and relevant documents for signature. In the event of inclement weather, prohibiting an outdoor wedding, the alternate venue for the marriage will be the Registry General.” In such cases, the marriage ceremony fee may be reduced to the fee applicable to marriages conducted within the Registry General.
Generally, only residents, or persons marrying residents, qualify for a church wedding. Catholics cannot be married in Catholic churches in Bermuda except under exceptional permissible circumstances, for example, if a parent or parents of the bride or groom live there. Questions on this subject must be addressed by airmail directly to the Bishop of Hamilton in Bermuda, P. O Box HM 1191, Hamilton HM EX, Bermuda. Locally, Catholics are required to give 12 months notice. In Catholic marriages it is normal for the marriage to take place in the church nearest to where the bride's parents live.
Most engaged couples over 18 years old in the USA, Canada, United Kingdom etc. not married before want a church wedding where the bride lives, with family and friends present. Thus, most visitors who want to get married in Bermuda may have been married before. For details of where to stay for people who wish to wed or honeymoon in Bermuda, see our Accommodation files.
Please note the Bermuda Government will not conduct or allow phony matrimonial unions in Bermuda. Registry staff pore through news clippings from countries including but not limited to the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, the Caribbean and Europe. It is an offence for persons to enter into a sham marriage or to arrange such a marriage for personal gain. Non-Bermudians will not derive any benefit from the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act if it is determined that they are in a sham marriage.
All adults and children need individual official passports from your country of birth or domicile to enter Bermuda. Do NOT attempt to enter Bermuda without a valid passport. It is the only way of confirming your identity. Birth certificates, state or provincial documents do not do so.. The majority of visitors arrive by air, but some are by cruise ship. All travel documents must be shown to Bermuda Immigration on arrival. Also needed are a Green Card or equivalent, if a legal registered alien in Britain, Canada or USA; a US re-entry permit if entering Bermuda from the USA and not a US citizen. (Check with the US Department of State). Citizens of Australia, Britain, Canada, European Union, New Zealand and USA may not require one as visitors. But Jamaican and other nationals do. Citizens of other countries may and should consult a British Embassy or Consul. Plus, if - like all nationals of Caribbean islands far to the south of Bermuda - they travel to and from Bermuda via Britain or Canada or the USA, they must obtain and bring the appropriate in transit documentation or visas required by the Immigration authorities of these countries for both portions of the journey. Plus, you will need:
Wedding couple in St. George's, Bermuda, outside old ruined churchCivil ceremonies may be performed in the Registry General's Marriage Room. Call 441 297 7709 or 441 297 7707 or Email email@example.com to find out more.
In Bermuda, unlike in the USA, Justices of the Peace do not have authority to perform weddings, so they are not licensed to do so unless they are also a local minister or priest of a recognized church and are licensed in Bermuda to perform weddings.
No aircraft in Bermuda or any accommodation properties are allowed under any Bermuda laws to marry you in Bermuda. However, a captain of a Bermuda-registered cruise ship may do so with the appropriate necessary procedure and approval.
Persons licensed by the Bermuda Government to conduct marriages are ministers of a particular religion with the sole exception of the Registrar of Marriages. Under the provisions of the Marriage Act 1944 the Minister of Labor, Home Affairs & Public Safety of the Bermuda Government can license a particular visiting minister or someone else certified in their jurisdiction as a qualified and competent religious minister or pastor or rabbi - for one Bermuda marriage ceremony. This means that if you can afford it and give plenty of notice yourself and also ensure that the clergy person or pastor of rabbi do the same via the same Bermuda Government office, you can bring in someone qualified from where either one or both of you live, to perform the wedding ceremony. In such circumstances, weddings can be in places other than local religious centers, if you can find a minister to do so (not easy if you are not local, you may need to consult a wedding planner). In all individual cases where a visiting priest or rabbi performs a marriage, a public notice of an "Appointment of a Marriage Officer" appears in a numbered Bermuda Government announcement in the Bermuda Official Gazette. It shows that the Minister of Labour, Home Affairs & Public Safety licenses the priest or rabbi of the publicly specified church or temple or synagogue or congregation to perform a marriage ceremony in Bermuda on the specified day. But understand that you may be asked to pay the transportation, accommodation, food and other costs and expenses of the religious person you arrange to bring in for the ceremony, or the relevant expenses of any local minister or equivalent.
Ceremonies may be held in a church or other location with the consent of a member of the clergy. They are entitled to make a charge for this service. They are required to ask for and obtain under Bermuda law the appropriate applications and approvals and/or consents referred to earlier. Wedding planners, dressmakers, etc. also apply extra charges. Only British subjects resident in England or Scotland or Northern Ireland who marry a British subject resident in Bermuda, and for whom banns are called in their normal place of worship in the United Kingdom, can also have their banns called in the church in Bermuda where the marriage takes place. Ask directly at the church for details. Some local churches will require considerable notice from both parties for weddings.
Married in Bermuda, by a church minister
The witnesses must be over 18 years of age and must be present at the ceremony. The Registrar will happily supply witnesses but Monday to Friday only.
No blood tests or health certificates are required in Bermuda. But note your Notice of Marriage notice is published by the Registry staff in two of the local newspapers of record in Bermuda, including the Official Gazette.
There are two types of such official public notices. They are one or other of the following:
This is what they both say, in this fictitious example:
"The persons named and described hereunder have given notice to me of their intended marriage, namely Do Re Me of River Drive, New York, New York 10025, USA (single) and Maiow B.Topcat (divorced) of Tennessee Drive, New York, New York 10025. Dated this 18th day of August, 2006. Marlene Christopher, Registrar General."
Historically, Bermuda was once known as the honeymoon capital.
Bermudians, locals or visitors, celebrate marriages in various ways. One way is to see lines of private cars all with horns blaring, en route to the wedding. When they come into sight, most cars are of a single make. The cars carrying members of the wedding party have ribbons adorning their bonnets. The ribbons were British customs adopted in Bermuda.
But many Bermudians and locals prefer horses and carriages - traditional Bermuda Surreys with the "fringes on top." A smartly-dressed carriage driver in a gleaming pith helmet, steers through the streets to the church a radiant, smiling, beautiful bride, with her immaculately attired father seated next to her.
When she smiles and waves to appreciative onlookers, the whole world wishes her well. Females watching the cavalcade get misty-eyed. After the wedding ceremony, the bride and her husband leave the church in the same way, clip-clopping to their changed lives ahead. Some nuptials - for locals only, who can persuade their church ministers to be there - are conducted on the pink sand of Bermuda's beaches.
Following behind them in more carriages to the wedding reception are the bride's parents, then the groom's parents in another, the bridesmaids and matron of honor in a third, and so on. Some newly-married couples head for a Bermuda Moongate to bring them luck. It's a local tradition. Popular beauty spots and attractions make perfect backdrops for wedding photographs, for example, the Bermuda Botanical Gardens or Palm Grove Gardens in Devonshire Parish. Bermuda Moongates have a particular appeal to newly-weds and are features of parks, hotels and many private properties. Although Moongates did not originate in Bermuda - the custom was imported from the Orient by Bermudian captains of sailing ships in the latter part of the 1800s - they have become a Bermudian tradition for newly-weds to step through together. The Lladro Bridal Couple figurine, imported, shown in the second photo below is gorgeous. It illustrates the local tradition of honeymooners walking through a moongate to be granted their wish for peace and happiness.
Bermuda Moongate at Tobacco Bay, showing a newly-married Maine couple. Photo copyrighted by this author.
Lladro figurine showing a Bermuda Moongate, a distinctive Bermuda wedding souvenir.
Traditional Bermuda wedding cakes are usually culinary works of art, often two, one for the bride and one for the groom. The bride's cake is usually a tiered rich dark fruit cake, laced with plenty of alcohol, iced with marzipan and silver leaf and topped with a small cedar tree to be planted by bride and groom as a sign of fertility. The groom's cake is a single layer pound cake again iced with marzipan, but with gold leaf. Especially (but not exclusively) when British expatriates are getting married, the wedding party and guests sing "For they are jolly good fellows." For weather forecasts on your Bermuda wedding day, consult Bermuda Weather. It is a Bermuda Government service, provided by the Ministry of Transport, Department of Air Operations.
Travel agents in the USA rate Bermuda as the seventh-best place in the world to tie the knot and for a honeymoon. Bermuda has also been number 5 in the top ten best places for romance. (Bermuda was not rated in places with the coolest beach sites, best beaches, best bargains or hottest wedding party spots).
If not a local, but needing music, you will not be allowed to import a musician, you must use someone local. It will be expensive. Or, as a less expensive alternative, bring special pre-recorded violin or other instrumental or choir or duet or trio or orchestral music of the type you and your spouse jointly really like, to make the occasion as romantic as possible. One of the most romantic and beautiful of all marriage proposal songs is this one, The Proposal, Sung by the Norman Luboff Choir, Alan Bergman, Marylyn Keith, Norman Luboff at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSSOQdU6tAM. Another is Like My Heart, also by the Norman Luboff Choir, written by William Attaway, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRinAPksjh4.
Some recommended music, by outstanding artistes:
|Music or song||Performer||composer|
|An Eriskay Love-Lilt||Celtic Tenors||traditional, Scottish|
|A Place In My Heart||Nana Mouskouri||J. P. Ferland/H. Shaper|
|Casta Diva. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p5T8U2qGF4||Nana Mouskouri||Bellini|
|Der lindenbaum||Nana Mouskouri||Schubert|
|Drink To Me Only With Thine Eyes||Roger Whittaker||English traditional, words by Ben Jonson, music at least by 1770|
|Fare Thee Well, Love||Celtic Tenors||Jimmy Rankin|
|Home Sweet Home||Home Sweet Home 19th Century Music Party||Bishop|
|If Dreams Came True, Dear||Pat Boone|
|I Have A Dream||Nana Mouskouri||B. Anderson/B. Ulvaeus|
|In The Gloaming||Celtic Tenors||words Meta Orred, music Annie Fortescue Harrison|
|Last Rose of Summer||Celtic Tenors||words Thomas Moore, music traditional Irish|
|Liebestraum No. 3 (Dream of Love)||Various||Liszt|
|Listen To The Ocean. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXeGhIJWG5I||Nina & Frederick||Van Pallandt|
|My Love Is Like a Red Red Rose||Roger Whittaker||Robert Burns|
|Love Changes Everything||Nana Mouskouri||Lloyd Webber, Black, Hart|
|Only Time Will Tell||Nana Mouskouri||Schubert|
|Plaisir D'amour||Nana Mouskouri||Schwarzendorf|
|Qual Cor Tradisti||Nana Mouskouri||Bellini|
|Remember Me||Celtic Tenors||Phil Coulter|
|Romanza d'Amour||A violin duet||Anon|
|Summer of My Dreams||Celtic Tenors||David Mallett|
|The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face||Nana Mouskouri||E. Mac Coll|
|The Prince of Denmark's March, for trumpet and organ||Various||Clarke|
|The Power of Love||Nana Mouskouri||De Rouge/G. Mendell|
|Unchained Melody, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrK5u5W8afc||Righteous Brothers|
|Voi che sapete||Nana Mouskouri||Mozart|
|Wedding Day at Troldhaugen||Various||Grieg|
|Wedding March from a Midsummer Night's Dream||Various||Mendelssohn|
|Will You Come||Home Sweet Home 19th Century Music Party||Barnett|
|Emerald||May||Lily of the Valley|
|Seventh||Copper, Wool||Desk Sets|
|Tenth||Tin, Aluminum||Diamond Jewelry|
Marriages/Weddings at sea
NCL Cruises, see http://www2.ncl.com/freestyle-cruise/wedding-and-romance
P&O Weddings, see http://www.pocruises.com/wedding/termsandconditions.asp.
Princess Cruises, see http://www.princess.com/learn/onboard/gifts_services/celebrations/wedding/index.jsp
Royal Caribbean Cruises, see http://bookings.royalcaribbean.co.uk/findacruise/experience/html.do?exCode=622&wuc=GBR
Marriages on board a cruise ship are conducted by either the captain or staff captain. Bermuda-registered ships such as Cunard, P&O and Princess Cruises mean that wedding certificates will be issued by the appropriate Bermuda Government agency.
A marriage vow means a commitment for life in good times and bad, not just for a period of time, so marriage vow renewals are technically superfluous, a romantic notion but important to some. Some may want them to be as solemn as the original vows and at the same venue, before one's family and friends and with the same minister or at least in the same church or place of worship. Others seek a romantic offshore location like Bermuda. There is no legislation or regulation in Bermuda affecting marriage vows renewals. Unlike in the USA and other foreign countries where Justices of the Peace can perform both marriages and marriage renewals, in Bermuda they cannot. Because marriage vow renewals in Bermuda are not marriages they do not require the attendance of any local official licensed to perform a marriage. Which in effect means you can ask a member of a ship's crew, if you are on a cruise, or a friend, to officiate inexpensively instead of going through any unnecessary expense or bureaucracy.
See Bermuda Laws. Citizenship is not given to any non-national unless he or she marries a Bermudian of the opposite sex and stays married to and lives with that Bermudian for at least 10 years and then applies for citizenship and receives it.
Bermuda is gorgeous as a place in which to get married but be aware that because of its remoteness, very small size, with almost everything imported, only 62,400 permanent population and other lack of economies of scale through no fault of its own and significant Bermuda Government import duties averaging 35 percent of wholesale value, it is very expensive by USA standards. See Cost of Living Guide. This is why so many Bermudians infinitely prefer to do their furniture, hardware, appliances, computer and wedding shopping in the USA, despite the 35% Customs Duties now levied not per person but per household on returning residents for goods valued at more than $100.
How this compares with residents from USA, Canada and UK returning to their home jurisdictions from their Bermuda visit.
However, note that visitors
arriving in Bermuda to get married in Bermuda, in addition to their normal
personal effects such as golf clubs, clothes, camera, and relevant accessories
are permitted to import goods for Bermuda weddings (e.g. party favors, wedding
dress, wedding rings, wedding gifts) free of duty provided that they are
2020. January 16. The Bermuda Government’s landmark appeal against same-sex marriage risks being thrown out by the Privy Council after a crucial deadline for the case was missed last month. The case in London would settle the issue for Bermuda, after years of wrangling in the island’s courts and Parliament. It would also set a precedent for the same-sex unions in the UK’s Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories, as well as a host of former territories, if heard at Britain’s top court. However, The Royal Gazette understands that a key document for the Government’s side missed a deadline with the Privy Council on December 13. Rod Attride-Stirling, one of the lawyers for the side backing same-sex unions, said yesterday: “The whole appeal could be struck out tomorrow by the Privy Council.” He added: “We had an agreement with the Government that in a case of this importance, we would both use our best endeavours to have this dealt with quickly. That agreement was made early last year. Since then, the Government has done everything to frustrate and delay the hearing taking place. In an instance involving human rights issues, delaying the process of the application is wrong.” The battle over same-sex marriage was referred to the Privy Council after the Bermuda Court of Appeal ruled against the Government in November 2018. The Government had an automatic right of appeal, as the issue rested on a constitutional matter. Gay couples were first able to wed in Bermuda after a key ruling in the Supreme Court opened the way for the unions in May 2017. Parliament responded by passing legislation that December, replacing same-sex marriages with domestic partnerships. In June 2018, a ruling by then Chief Justice, Ian Kawaley, backed a constitutional challenge to the areas of the Domestic Partnership Act revoking same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriages became legal on the island again after the Court of Appeal ruling, and have continued since. The Privy Council, as the highest court of appeal available for Bermuda, marks the last hurdle after same-sex marriage was pushed to the forefront by a petition in 2015. A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Home Affairs said this month that the Government’s appeal had been “duly lodged with the Privy Council on 12 July, 2019, in advance of the applicable deadline”. She added: “Going forward, we are in the hands of the Privy Council.” But under the directions of the Privy Council’s judicial committee, the Government as the appealing side must file a statement of agreed facts and issues, with the agreement of the opposing side, for the appeal to get its date in court. That statement must set out the relevant issues, explaining what items are disputed if the parties cannot agree, and should be a “neutral document” signed by counsel from both sides. Under Privy Council rules, the statement should have been filed on December 13 — or an application should have been filed for an extension. The Gazette asked home affairs this week whether the document had been filed. No response was received by press time last night. Mr Attride-Stirling, who represents the LGBTQ rights charity OutBermuda with four other respondents, said that the Government had “delayed every single step”. He added: “We had an agreement with the Attorney-General that they would move expeditiously to bring this forward as soon as possible. That would have been early in 2019.” The lawyer also questioned the costs incurred by the delay, noting: “The legal team they have working for them is very senior. They are first-rate — and as expensive as money can buy.” The case’s total cost to the public purse is not known. Last May, OutBermuda estimated a bill as high as $3 million for the Government’s legal fight against same-sex marriage. On that occasion, the spokeswoman for home affairs responded that the ministry “cannot and will not speculate” on the cost of taking the case to the Privy Council.
2019. September 5. The Government’s delay in filing against same-sex marriage with the Privy Council in London has been branded “scandalous” by a lawyer for the side backing same-sex unions. Rod Attride-Stirling, representing the LGBTQ rights charity OutBermuda, with four other respondents, said the Government had “purposely delayed every single step” in having the case heard by Britain’s top court. “They are trying to make it go as slowly as possible,” Mr Attride-Stirling said this week. “If they had filed notice of appeal in London in January or February, it would likely be over now, or a date would be fixed.” He added: “As a result, some of the same-sex couples who are getting married in Bermuda are being told there’s a question mark hanging over their marriage. Who would want that?” The lawyer said that the Bermuda Government had lodged its notice of appeal with the Privy Council on July 12. Documents were filed one day short of seven months after the Government’s application for leave was lodged with the Bermuda Court of Appeal last December. Mr Attride-Stirling said the notice to the Privy Council would have been “virtually identical” to the appeal filed in here. “It should have taken them two weeks at the most,” he said. “It’s scandalous. They wanted to delay it — there’s no other reason why.” A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Home Affairs said: “The Government’s appeal is properly before the Privy Council and all deadlines have been duly complied with. Information and practice directions on the applicable timelines and processes can be found on the Privy Council’s website.” Reuters reported last Friday that no date had been confirmed for the hearing, which was “unlikely to be this year”, according to a Privy Council spokeswoman. The spokeswoman said: “We have received the paperwork for this case and it is being finalised. It has not been listed yet so we do not know yet know when the hearing will be. The case number is JCPC 2019/0077.” The Government’s decision to take the case to the highest court of appeal for Bermuda marked a last-ditch effort in the legislative battle over same-sex marriage. After a milestone Supreme Court ruling in May 2017 opened the way for gay couples to wed, Bermuda’s Parliament countered by passing legislation that December that replaced same-sex marriages with domestic partnerships. In June 2018, the Chief Justice of the day, Ian Kawaley, ruled in favour of a constitutional challenge against sections of the Domestic Partnership Act revoking same-sex marriage. The Bermuda Government appealed unsuccessfully in November 2018. Mr Attride-Stirling said his clients were “champing at the bit to proceed” and had “written 100 times” to the Government’s side querying the delay in filing with the Privy Council. The lawyer said that in the interim, Carnival Cruise Line, which has its ships registered in Bermuda, has stopped granting same-sex weddings aboard its vessels. He said: “Carnival is worried about conducting weddings in case the Privy Council changes the law.” Mr Attride-Stirling said he was “cautiously optimistic” because “the Bermuda judgments are massively in our favour”. He added: “We will get a date set soon. We just do not know when the hearing will take place.”
2019. August 30. On the eve of the Pride event and parade in Hamilton, the Opposition leader said he would vote in favour of same-sex marriage, after his thoughts changed in wake of a referendum on the subject three years ago. Craig Cannonier added that he recognised the rights of individuals to control their own lives and to be happy. The One Bermuda Alliance leader explained: “I voted against it and a large part of that had to do with the fact that, historically, I grew up in the church as a Christian man and, still, I’m an ardent believer in the Lord. It has been something that the church has frowned on, yet we have so many other sins that are going on around in Bermuda ... men abusing young women — underage — and young boys, that we need to stamp out. These people have walked through the halls of our churches, they have gone to the front and prayed, and have led in our churches.” He added: “I recognize that what we need to do, is get on with loving one another and put the judging behind us, aside. So with that journey, I recognised that it is important to embrace the community.” The non-binding referendum in 2016 recorded a majority vote against the introduction of both same-sex marriage and civil unions. However, the vote had a turnout of less than 47 per cent, with 14,192 against same-sex marriage and 6,514 in favour. Mr Cannonier said: “I met with several pastors and at the end of the day, I came to the conclusion that, the greatest commandment is love.” He added: “I think we have way too many issues within society, because we have judged people on things that we shouldn’t have, not understanding the history, not understanding where people have come from. That goes for even members of the LGBT community judging someone like myself, who did not agree with same-sex marriage. The beauty of it is that upon reflection, upon listening and upon continuing to want to grow in the process of becoming a better human being, I have come to the conclusion, that they have the right of self-determination, they have the right to happiness, as long as it’s not breaking any laws.” Mr Cannonier said the introduction of a Pride celebration in Bermuda was “an historic time. I believe that the message that the LGBT community, the Pride community, have given is a message of love, unity, harmony and, quite interestingly enough, diversity as well, which is the spice of life.” The MP said he felt in the past that LGBT people had “not stood together as strongly as they should have”. He added that the Pride celebration was an opportunity for people to come together to “spread the message of love. I’m appreciative of the message, because it is a message that should be screamed as loud as possible around the world; that we are all human beings, and that if we treat each other with the foundation of love, we can come to conclusions a whole lot better, and we can heal a whole lot quicker.” Mr Cannonier called for both spectators and participants to be “respectful” and for everyone to “conduct themselves with decorum, respect in pride in who they are”, without casting aspersions or judgments. He added he could not attend the parade because he will be at a family funeral.
2019. July 26. A crowdfunding campaign to raise cash to fight the next step of the Government’s legal battle against same-sex marriage has been launched. The Crowd Justice campaign, which started on Wednesday, had already raised nearly $5,000 by last night. Tony Brannon, the man behind the fundraiser, said: “I’m sure that what we raise will be a fraction of what the true costs end up being.” Cash from the campaign will be put towards the legal fight against the Government’s legal attempt to ban gay weddings. The Government confirmed in May that it had been given permission to take the case to the Privy Council in London, the island’s highest court of appeal. Mr Brannon said he had mixed feelings about the Government’s decision to continue its fight. He explained: “In some ways, I think it’s crazy that they are, but in other ways, I’m going this is really good. As sure as the sun comes up tomorrow morning, you’re going to lose in [the] Privy Council. This will be great.’” Mr Brannon said that the case would set precedent and would make similar fights for same-sex marriage rights in other places easier. He added: “Winning this case means that other territories literally have to follow suit.” Bermuda’s Supreme Court ruled in May 2017 that gay couples could marry, but six months later, the Government passed the Domestic Partnership Act, outlawing same-sex weddings. A challenge was brought against the Act by Bermudian Rod Ferguson. LGBTQ+ charity OutBermuda and others joined the legal action. Ian Kawaley, the former chief justice, ruled in June last year that the parts of the legislation that restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples were unconstitutional. He agreed to a request from the Government for his decision to be “stayed” pending an appeal, which meant gay couples could no longer marry. The Court of Appeal upheld Mr Justice Kawaley’s ruling in November and lifted the ban on same-sex marriages. The Government has now been given permission to appeal that decision to the Privy Council in London. The Royal Gazette made a public access to information request for records related to the cost of the Court of Appeal case. Gitanjali Gutierrez, the Information Commissioner, said this month that she would review a refusal by the Government to release the information. The Attorney-General’s Chambers rejected the request on the grounds that the records were exempt under Pati legislation. Marva O’Brien, the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Legal Affairs, upheld the refusal this month, after being ordered to issue a decision by Ms Gutierrez. Mr Brannon said the crowdfunding campaign was also designed to raise global awareness about the case. He added that contributions of any amount were appreciated. Mr Brannon said: “It doesn’t matter if you contribute $10 or $1,000. If you believe that everybody should be equal in 2019, then please contribute whatever you can afford. Equality is priceless — but the cost to get to equality can be expensive.”
2019. July 10. Gay rights activists hit out yesterday after a government backbencher told the House of Assembly that many on the island did not want a Gay Pride march in Bermuda. Adrian Hartnett-Beasley said the speech by Michael Weeks was out of order. He wrote on the Bermuda Pride Supporters Facebook page: “This is why we march. MP Weeks makes it clear that it’s not just Pride or marriage equality, it’s all that this issue represents ... everything about the LGBTQ community. He even has the audacity to go on to say that he and his constituents understand why we feel underrepresented and unseen and unheard because his constituents are being called out for being homophobic ... hateful ... biased.” He added: “Well, if it walks and talks like a bigot ... I surely say it’s probably a bigot.” Mr Hartnett-Beasley was speaking after Mr Weeks spoke about the Pride event, scheduled to be held on August 31, during the motion to adjourn at last Friday’s sitting of the House of Assembly. Mr Weeks said members of the public had told them they were unhappy about the Pride parade and that the voters had made their opinions clear about “same-sex marriage and all it encompasses” in the 2016 referendum on same sex marriage, which rejected gay marriage. The majority of those who voted in the 2016 referendum voted against same-sex marriage and civil unions, but less than 50 per cent of registered voters cast a vote. Mr Weeks told MPs: “I have been approached by many, some of whom are my constituents, who have made it clear to me they are not in support of this kind of event being held on our island. Some have also reminded me of the result of the referendum in 2016 and what that stood for.” He added: “Some will argue, that we live in a democracy and if people want to live their lives as such and march, then they have every right to do so and defend it. I venture to say there are some in here tonight, that maintain that view. I understand. Why? Because on that same principle of democracy, those against have the same right to stand and oppose it, without the threat of being bullied into silence or called homophobic, hateful or biased.” Mr Weeks also criticized Commissioner of Police Stephen Corbishley, who said he and the Bermuda Police Service would support the parade. He asked: “What message is he sending to the many who oppose same-sex marriage by throwing his support to this event? Should it not be a neutral stance by the Commissioner of Police like the rest of the civil servants are asked to do on a daily basis?” Derrick Burgess, a Progressive Labour Party MP and Deputy Speaker, backed Mr Weeks. Mr Burgess said: “The commissioner, who is here on contract, shouldn’t be making the statements he made. He’s here for law and order. If he’s got those persuasions, I don’t have a problem with that there, but he should be neutral. He never took a position and said he was going to come out and support the Labour Day march. He’s never supported the Heritage Day march, but he can come out and make a statement about this march, right?” He also criticized TV station ZBM for its decision to air footage of men kissing in their coverage of the parade story. Mr Burgess said: “Some families watch TV as a family. Children there. What message are you sending to our children? My job as a male, as a parent, as a grandparent is to protect my children. When they get of age, whatever choice they make is on them. They are just shoveling it down people’s throats.” Mr Corbishley said yesterday that he stood by his support of the parade. He said: “As articulated in my comments within The Royal Gazette article on June 25, 2019, the BPS will be supporting Bermuda’s Pride Parade, as we represent all communities in Bermuda. We are there to protect people, but also we are there to build confidence and trust.”
2019. May 30. The Government’s legal bid to ban same-sex weddings is likely to cost taxpayers as much as $3 million, marriage equality campaigners suggested yesterday. LGBTQ charity OutBermuda estimated the final cost after the Government confirmed it had been given permission to take the case to the Privy Council in London, the island’s highest court of appeal. OutBermuda said it expected the Government to lose the case, meaning legal costs for both sides would come out of the public purse. “To be perfectly clear, today in Bermuda, same-sex couples are fully permitted to secure marriage licences and have their marriages recognized,” the charity said in a statement. This right was declared by the Bermuda Supreme Court in 2017 and upheld by two subsequent court decisions. The ongoing legal battle and final hearing in the Privy Council, however, is necessary to make this basic human right permanent and lasting for all Bermuda citizens.” The charity added: “Once we are successful at the Privy Council, we estimate that the Bermuda Government will incur approximately $3 million in covering their own legal expenses, as well as ours.” A Ministry of Home Affairs spokeswoman told The Royal Gazette: “The Government has received leave to appeal. The Government’s position concerning the appeal has not changed.” She added that the ministry “cannot and will not speculate” on the cost of taking the case to the Privy Council. Bermuda’s Supreme Court ruled in May 2017 that gay couples could marry but six months later the Government passed the Domestic Partnership Act, outlawing same-sex weddings. A challenge was brought against the Act by Bermudian Rod Ferguson, with OutBermuda and others joining the legal action. Former Chief Justice Ian Kawaley ruled on their case in June last year, finding that the parts of the legislation that restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples were unconstitutional. He agreed to a request from the Government for his decision to be “stayed” pending an appeal, meaning gay couples could no longer wed. The Court of Appeal upheld Mr Justice Kawaley’s ruling in November and allowed same-sex marriages to take place again. The cost so far to taxpayers of the case brought by Mr Ferguson and OutBermuda is not known. David Burt, the Premier, told MPs in December that it cost about $14,000 for legal advice on whether to take the fight against marriage equality to the Privy Council and that appealing Mr Justice Kawaley’s decision in the Court of Appeal cost about $52,000. Home affairs minister Walter Roban had previously said the legal costs for the Court of Appeal matter were estimated to be about $61,000. The House of Assembly heard in March that the estimated legal costs “to date” of defending the case brought by Mr Ferguson and OutBermuda and appealing the outcome was “likely between $120,000 and $150,000”. Health minister Kim Wilson, speaking during a debate on the legal affairs budget, told MPs: “The cost to appeal to the Privy Council and the cost of responding to the appeal has not been finalized at the moment.” It is understood that Mr Ferguson’s lawyer, Mark Pettingill, and OUTBermuda's lawyer, Rod Attride-Stirling, are seeking costs of about $800,000 each. OutBermuda said yesterday: “OutBermuda, as well as Rod Ferguson and the other successful plaintiffs, are proceeding to enforce the Court of Appeal’s order against the Government for legal costs incurred.” The Royal Gazette made a public access to information request for records related to the cost of the Court of Appeal case from the Ministry of Legal Affairs. The ministry rejected the request and did not respond to a request for a review of that decision. Information commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez ordered the ministry yesterday to provide the newspaper with a final decision on whether it would release the records by July 10. OutBermuda said law Lord David Panicky QC — “a pre-eminent human rights and constitutional advocate in the United Kingdom, with extensive global experience” — would represent the charity and Mr Ferguson at the Privy Council. The Government of Bermuda this week received their consent from the Court of Appeal in Bermuda to submit their formal Notice of Appeal to the Privy Council; that action will set into motion the rest of the steps and processes and the timing of the hearing in London,” said the charity in its statement. OutBermuda is applying for their case to be expedited and heard in the Privy Council as soon as possible, to validate the will of Bermuda’s highest court and to give absolute certainty to all Bermudian citizens and same-sex couples.” Mr Ferguson said: “We always knew this road might take us all the way to the Privy Council. Our team is committed. The support for equal marriage for LGBTQ Bermudians is strong. Our faith in the fairness of the courts has been reaffirmed at every step along the way and we are optimistic about the outcome in London.” OutBermuda director Adrian Hartnett-Beasley added: “Love ultimately must win. While Bermuda’s same-sex couples have been able to celebrate their vows equally under our laws — again — for over six months, we cannot take this hard-won right for granted. This is also the time we prepare well for our final push and bring our case not only to the Privy Council but for the rest of the world to hear.” The home affairs spokeswoman would not say who will represent the Government at the Privy Council. Between May 2017 and June 2018, 20 same-sex couples tied the knot — 14 on the island and 6 at sea. There have been two more same-sex marriages since the Court of Appeal’s judgment. Three couples have entered into domestic partnerships since June 1 last year, with one more union pending.
2019. May 27. A British MP with family ties to Bermuda has called on the island to tackle its fears over same-sex marriage and give gay couples the right to marry. Gillian Keegan, whose husband, Michael, is descended from the Gosling rum family, told The Royal Gazette the United Kingdom should not have to force Bermuda to introduce marriage equality, in line with a recommendation in a report from the British parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee. Ms Keegan, Conservative MP for Chichester and parliamentary private secretary to the Ministry of Defence, said: “I think Bermuda is better than that.” She raised Bermuda’s record on same-sex marriage in the House of Commons this month in a debate on the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia. Ms Keegan told MPs: “Our country is a leader in the world, much respected for our influence and the example we set. I am proud that it was a Conservative prime minister who put same-sex marriage on the statute book, but, as many colleagues have said, there is much to be done in the wider Commonwealth countries. I was particularly disappointed to see what was happening in Bermuda, which still seems to have a problem with LGBT rights. I mention Bermuda as my husband is the grandson of a Gosling, a very well-known Bermudian family, famous for Gosling’s rum.” One would think that a wealthy and important British overseas territory would take a more enlightened and tolerant approach, and I call on it to do so.” Bermuda’s Supreme Court ruled in May 2017 that gay couples could marry but six months later the Government passed the Domestic Partnership Act, outlawing same-sex weddings. A legal challenge was brought against the Act and then Chief Justice Ian Kawaley ruled in May last year that the parts of the legislation that restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples were against the Constitution. The Court of Appeal upheld his decision in November and same-sex marriages were once again allowed to take place. But the Government has said it would appeal to the Privy Council in London. Walter Roban, the home affairs minister, said the case was important to Bermuda’s people and the Government wanted to go to the highest court of appeal to “get it right”. Ms Keegan said in a phone interview that she and her husband, whose grandmother Armine Gosling was Bermudian, visited Bermuda fairly regularly but had only recently discovered, through research on LGBT rights, how the island had seesawed on the question. She added: “Both of us are very concerned about LGBT rights. My husband’s two brothers were gay. We have a sort of natural interest. During our research, we were very disappointed to see that in Bermuda they passed an Act to remove the right of same-sex couples to marry. It surprised us, from what we knew about Bermuda. We thought it would be a little bit more enlightened than that.” Ms Keegan said: “We were surprised to see Bermuda on the list of countries that were taking regressive steps.” She added that Britain did not issue “diktats” to its Overseas Territories on a regular basis and should not necessarily force Bermuda’s hand on the question. But she added: “I think it should definitely be encouraged. It’s a very important human right. I think it would be a shame if the OTs didn’t move into the 21st century.” Same-sex marriage has been allowed in most of the UK since 2014, but not in Northern Ireland, which has civil partnerships that offer many of, but not all, the rights of marriage. Ms Keegan said she had spoken to many voters at the time, including Conservatives and Christians, who were “very fearful” of the change but who now accepted that “it hasn’t had any impact on their lives at all”. She added: “It hasn’t devalued marriage.” Ms Keegan said there should be a “breaking down of barriers” in Bermuda so an honest and open discussion could be held on why sections of Bermudian society feared same-sex marriage. She added the status quo was “not ideal” because Bermuda was now seen around the world as a regressive jurisdiction on marriage equality. Ms Keegan said: “I think they need to clarify the law. I think it’s important that it’s enshrined in law, the right to love.” The Ministry of Home Affairs did not respond to questions on the status of its Privy Council appeal.
2019. April 12. A lawyer in the Cayman Islands said a Privy Council ruling in favour of same-sex marriage in Bermuda would help the fight for marriage equality in the Caribbean territory. Leonardo Raznovich, a barrister, added that he would not be surprised if the Privy Council refused to hear Bermuda’s appeal in light of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s push towards equal rights to marriage in the Overseas Territories. He said: “I am struggling to see why the Privy Council would step in, other than for stating that it agrees with the local court in Bermuda, in which case, of course, it would have a positive impact in the Cayman Islands.” Dr Raznovich added: “In this particular case, the local judiciary unanimously held that equal marriage is required and paradoxically the local executive wants the imperial court to step in and reverse what the local court unanimously has done. I have not seen in my whole life a worst case of reverse colonialism.” Dr Raznovich added the legal arguments for same-sex marriage in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands were different due to differences in their constitutions. He said the Cayman Islands’ constitution was more modern and based on the European Convention of Human Rights, while Bermuda’s constitution is a “first generation” text. Dr Raznovich said: “It may be the case that the Privy Council takes this opportunity to modernize the case law that deals with constitutional constructions in situations such as the text in Bermuda.” The Bermuda Government asked the Privy Council to hear an appeal on an island Court of Appeal ruling that rejected clauses in the Domestic Partnership Act designed to block same-sex marriages in Bermuda. The Privy Council has not yet said if it will hear the Bermudian case. The Cayman Islands have had a similar dispute between the legislature and the judiciary on same-sex marriage. Cayman Chief Justice Anthony Smellie found in favour of same-sex marriage at the end of last month in the case of Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden Bush, a same-sex couple who were rejected permission to wed last year. The ruling was celebrated by marriage equality campaigners, but the Cayman Islands Government has launched an appeal against the ruling. The effect of the ruling was formally stayed by the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal on Wednesday. Alden McLaughlin, the Premier of the Caymans, said last week that Mr Justice Smellie may have exceeded his powers under the Caymans constitution. He added: “If left unchallenged, the implications for the Cayman Islands’ constitution are significant and potentially far-reaching and go well beyond the rights of same-sex couples.” A spokesman for the Foreign Office said after Mr Justice Smellie’s judgment that the UK government was disappointed by the decision to appeal the ruling. The spokesman added: “The court judgment permitting same-sex marriage in the Cayman Islands puts the territory among the most progressive societies in the region in terms of LGBT equality. The UK Government is committed to equal rights, including LGBT rights, and welcomes the judgment. We are therefore disappointed by the decision of the Cayman Islands Government to appeal.” Jonathan Cooper, a barrister who advised the two women who brought the Caymans case, said the UK Government should have legalized same-sex marriage in the Caymans before the case came to court. Mr Cooper said: “Chantelle and Vickie should not have been forced to litigate in order to have their relationship recognized in law. It’s a scandal that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office made them do this.” Mr Cooper added: “The Foreign & Commonwealth Office could and should have insisted that all British Overseas Territories recognize LGBT relationships in law. Instead, they dragged Chantelle and Vickie through the courts. It’s brilliant what Chantelle and Vickie have achieved, but it’s also demeaning to have to compel your government to recognize your love.”
2019. April 1. Bermudian precedents helped bring the legalisation of same-sex marriage in the Cayman Islands, according to local lawyers. Rod Attride-Stirling, who was involved in several landmark marriage equality cases in Bermuda, said he assisted lawyers involved in the Cayman Islands case. He said: “The Cayman court relied very heavily on the Bermuda court judgments. It is unquestionably the case that Bermuda has led the way on the development of a freedom of conscience right to marriage, which includes same-sex marriage.” Mark Pettingill, another lawyer involved in the local cases, said he was thrilled to see Bermuda’s fight for same-sex marriage used to aid other jurisdictions. Mr Pettingill said: “I’m very pleased that they made use of what happened in Bermuda. We have three judgments now so it’s no wonder that they are being used. All of them are very strong.” Mr Pettingill said he was very happy to see the Cayman Islands “get on the human rights bandwagon” and he expects other jurisdictions to follow the same path. He added: “Hopefully, Cayman will just leave things where they are now and accept it.” Bermudian Roderick Ferguson, an applicant in the case which overruled the Domestic Partnership Act, said he was excited to hear that his case was used to help open the door to same-sex marriage in the Cayman Islands. He said: “I feel a deep sense of gratitude knowing that our case played a role in the Cayman Islands ruling. As the fight for the rights of LGBTQ people continues to unfold, it is gratifying to know that we have helped pave the way for further victories, just as those before us helped pave the way for ours.” The Cayman case was launched by Chantelle Day and Vickie Bodden Bush, who applied to be married in the Cayman Islands last year only to be rejected on the grounds that they were a same-sex couple. The couple argued that Ms Bush, a British national, was denied a spousal visa because they were refused the right to marry. Meanwhile Ms Day, who jointly adopted a daughter with Ms Bush in the UK, could not be recognized as the child’s mother in Cayman. In a judgment released on Friday, Cayman Chief Justice Anthony Smellie — who also sits on Bermuda’s Court of Appeal — found that their rights had been violated. As such, Mr Justice Smellie ordered the Marriage Law be changed immediately to allow same-sex marriage. Leonardo Raznovich, a Cayman barrister and same-sex advocate, said yesterday: “The judge found that the Marriage Law’s definition of marriage was unconstitutional because it breached the right to private life and family and freedom of conscience and was discriminatory. It did mention the Bermuda case in the summary that he read in court.” Dr Raznovich said he did not know if the Cayman Government would appeal the decision, although he had faith that any appeal would be unsuccessful. He said: “Whether the Attorney-General and/or Registrar will appeal will become a decision of the Premier. His government had ample opportunity to address this issue but have consistently failed to act. The court has now done the job that the Government was unable, or unwilling, to do. As a matter of law and as a matter of politics, any prospect of appeal is set to fail and to constitute a hemorrhaging of money that the Government should instead use for health, education or other areas that will benefit all Caymanians.” Peter Laverack, a part of the legal team that represented the couple, said: “Chantelle and Vickie’s relationship finally has been recognized. For too long, they and their daughter were denied what loving couples and ordinary families take for granted. The Chief Justice’s judgment beautifully combines the common law and European Court case law, with a healthy dose of common sense. Equality means equality. Love is love.” The judgment echoes similar decisions in Bermuda courts, which legalized same-sex marriage and struck down the Domestic Partnership Act, intended to ban same-sex marriage and replace it with domestic partnership. In the latter case, Chief Justice Ian Kawaley ruled that the DPA infringed on the constitutional freedom of conscience. The Bermuda Government has filed for permission to appeal to London’s Privy Council, but that court has yet to accept or refuse the application.
2019. March 14. The estimated cost for legal services so far in Bermuda’s fight against same-sex marriage was pegged at between $120,000 and $150,000. Kim Wilson, the Minister of Health, said: “The estimated cost for counsel to Government to date is likely between $120,000 and $150,000.” She added: “The cost to appeal to Privy Council and the cost of responding to the appeal has not been finalized at the moment. It may be subject to taxation, and as a result, we will defer the answer with respect to further details concerning that cost until such time if it is taxed.” Ms Wilson was speaking as the Budget for the Legal Affairs ministry was debated in the House of Assembly yesterday. It came in response to a question from Scott Pearman, the Shadow Minister of Legal Affairs, about the anticipated costs of the legal challenge. Mr Pearman took issue with Ms Wilson’s response that an answer would have to wait until taxation was tallied. He said: “I would have anticipated that the other parties involved would have had to give cost estimates to the court as part of the process. And therefore, one would expect the Attorney-General’s ministry to be in a position to say, roughly — at least on an estimated basis — how much this cost bill is going to be if the Government loses. I take the point we’ll know what it actually is when it is taxed, it’s a very fair point. However Mr Pearman added: “I would hope that the ministry would have at least some sort of idea what the estimated number is, or may be.” David Burt, the Premier, told MPs last December that the Government paid roughly $14,000 for legal advice before it decided to take its legal fight to the Privy Council in London. Mr Burt told the House of Assembly that £11,250 had been spent — about $14,140 at the time — on legal advice so far in connection with its appeal to the island’s highest court of appeal. He added that the Bermuda Court of Appeal case the month before had cost £41,750, about $52,000. The on-island costs, however, were about $9,000 lower than those given by the Ministry of Home Affairs about two weeks earlier. A spokeswoman for Mr Burt explained later that the Premier’s figure did not include the cost for travel for the London-based barrister retained to argue the Government’s case. The home affairs ministry said earlier that the cost to hire James Guthrie QC, for the Court of Appeal case, fly him to Bermuda and house him in the island totaled $61,188. That amount did not include the effects of a costs order — which required Government to pay for both sides of the legal battle — or any other legal expenses that may have been run up. Mr Pearman said that “one lawyer’s brief fee isn’t the totality of the case”. He explained: “We will operate under a loser pays system.” Mr Pearman questioned what the bill would be if its legal challenge failed. He asked: “How much does the Government anticipate will be paid out by the Bermudian public in legal fees for this appeal? And for the Court of Appeal below? And for the Supreme Court of first instance? All of which will be paid, if ordered, by the Privy Council.”
2019. January 15. A lack of leadership on same-sex marriage slowed progress towards equality, the outgoing chairwoman of the Human Rights Commission has claimed. Tawana Tannock said the row was the most difficult subject she had tackled in her six years with the HRC, three of them as chairwoman. Ms Tannock admitted: “I’ve got to be honest and say the same-sex marriage debate.” She said the goalposts were shifted and that residents were unable to “respectfully disagree” on the controversy. But she admitted that she regretted that she had lacked tolerance for people who opposed any recognition of same-sex unions. Ms Tannock said: “I felt, and I still feel, that we have taken two steps forward and one step back. It was difficult because I feel like the goalposts, in terms of what people expected, changed. At one point, I remember we were approached and asked, what’s your position on civil unions? We said we think it’s important that same-sex couples have the same rights and protections afforded to them, however this is managed, whether it’s civil unions or marriage. It was this discussion about whether or not civil unions went far enough, then of course you had the referendum, I just felt like there was never any clear leadership on what, as a country, we should do to protect the rights of some of our citizens. That was very disheartening.” Ms Tannock said the commission supported “legal recognition of rights for same-sex couples”, although the position was more complicated than saying it was for or against same-sex marriage. The same rights that are afforded for mixed-sex couples should be afforded for couples of the same sex.” The corporate lawyer said one person had told her in public: “I’m going to pray for you, I’m going to pray that you change your mind.” However, Ms Tannock said: “I am not, in any way, shape or form, leading the charge on this. There are other people who have done far more work who deserve far more credit for trying to push the ball forward on this, but I thought to myself, this is why people are afraid to stand up for what they believe. If I’m getting this type of response, what must other people be encountering? “It was really saddening to me that people on either side of the argument didn’t seem to respectfully disagree.” Ms Tannock said she experienced “vitriol” she had never seen before. She added that the HRC could have better informed the public about its stance on same-sex marriage. Ms Tannock said: “If I had to change something that I could do differently over that past six years, I would be more tolerant of people who had opinions that I did not agree with. I think what I should have done — myself not the HRC — there were segments of the community that I wish I would have listened to a little bit more so that I could understand where they were coming from. You can be so concerned with what you think is the appropriate thing to do that you fail to understand the point of view of others. I think a lot of times, because I failed to do that, I ended up preaching to the choir.” The Court of Appeal dismissed the Government’s claim last November that former Chief Justice Ian Kawaley was wrong to strike down parts of the Domestic Partnership Act, which was designed to replace same-sex marriage with civil unions. The Progressive Labour Party administration later requested permission to take the case to London’s Privy Council. Ms Tannock said: “I don’t understand why the Government is appealing this decision.” She added she was “very pleased” when legislation was passed to ban discrimination on the grounds of mental illness, but that “the major issue” of employment discrimination on the grounds of age should have been added as well. Ms Tannock explained the Human Rights Act only offered protection based on age in relation to the disposal of premises and goods, services and facilities. She said: “We actively campaigned to have the age of retirement lifted or even reviewed. Preferably, removed altogether, but reviewed in some manner.” The PLP government said in its Throne Speech last year that a change to the mandatory public service retirement age would be considered. Ms Tannock said: “I’m hopeful that maybe we’ll see a change come soon because with the cost of living in Bermuda now and the cost of health insurance, it’s really difficult for our seniors who are not working, who are able-bodied and capable, to have to retire mandatory. I think it’s ironic that it’s not in the private sector that there’s this mandatory age of retirement, but it’s with the Government, who actually should be the ones who are leading the charge.”
2018. December 29. Bermuda’s first domestic partnerships ceremonies have taken place between both same-sex and opposite sex couples. Civil unions became an option after legislation was enacted in June and four people have been appointed to officiate over the ceremonies. A government spokeswoman confirmed yesterday that two women formed a domestic partnership in October, an opposite sex couple did the same earlier this month and two men were scheduled to form a domestic partnership before the end of the month. Three of Bermuda’s four domestic partnership officers were appointed last month after an advert invited members of the public to apply for the roles. Kendaree Burgess, the executive director of the Bermuda Chamber of Commerce, was among them. She said: “My preference is that marriage equality would be the way that the law would go and that has come to pass, so I’m actually more thrilled that that’s available and I’m curious as to what the role of the domestic partnership officer will be now that there is marriage equality.” Ms Burgess explained she found it “bothersome” that people might want a civil union. but not be able to have a ceremony because of a lack of officers. She added: “I decided to put myself forward as someone who would be happy to be there to serve in that capacity.” Ms Burgess joined others in a training and information session that included a mock ceremony, which she said was “fun and funny” but also a useful opportunity to ask questions. Ms Burgess admitted she would be anxious conducting her first ceremony, despite experience in speaking to large audiences. She said: “I think I will be just as nervous as the people I’m joining at my first one. It’s one thing to conduct a speech in a business situation but to join two people together, in theory for the rest of their lives, is a very serious occasion, not one to be taken lightly. I think I will be nervous and probably emotional at my very first one.” Derek Fisher, a personal trainer, was also appointed. He believed “the more experience you get with it, and the more natural you become with it, the better flow that you have”. He aimed to make people feel at ease. “The whole objective, where you’re going to have two people that are embarking on another chapter of their lives, a happy chapter, everybody should look back on that — whether it’s a domestic partnership, whether it’s a traditional marriage — with a degree of fondness,” he said. Alex Potts QC, a partner at law firm Kennedys, was also registered in the new role. He said: “Legal qualifications are not necessary, but they do seem relevant.” Mr Potts said he looked forward to “my invitation to the party afterwards”. The Minister of Home Affairs approves the appointment of domestic partnership officers. An advert for applications said: “Interested persons must be of good standing and be well versed with the contents of the Domestic Partnership Act, 2018.” The Registrar-General and assistant Registrar-General can also officiate at domestic partnership ceremonies. There were 14 same-sex marriages on the island from May 2017 up until the Domestic Partnership Act came into force at the start of June, as well as a further six on Bermuda-flagged ships. The Domestic Partnership Act 2018 banned same-sex marriage and has been the subject of a long legal battle in which, most recently, the right of gay couples to wed was restored. Banns posted in the Official Gazette showed one marriage between two men was scheduled since then. The Court of Appeal last month dismissed the Government’s claim that former chief justice Ian Kawaley was wrong to strike down parts of the Act on the grounds they were against the Constitution. The Government later lodged notice with the Court of Appeal to ask permission to take the case to Bermuda’s final court of appeal, the Privy Council in London.
2018. December 15. The Premier said yesterday that the Government paid $14,000 for legal advice before it decided to take its battle to ban same-sex marriage to the Privy Council in London. David Burt told the House of Assembly the Government had spent £11,250 — about $14,140 — on legal advice so far in connection with its appeal to the island’s highest court of appeal. He added that the Bermuda Court of Appeal case last month cost £41,750, about $52,000. The on-island costs, however, were about $9,000 lower than those given by the Ministry of Home Affairs about two weeks ago. A spokeswoman for Mr Burt explained later that the Premier’s figure did not include the cost for travel for the London-based barrister retained to argue the Government’s case. The home affairs ministry said earlier that the cost to hire James Guthrie QC, for the Court of Appeal case, fly him to Bermuda and house him in the island totaled $61,188. That amount did not include the effects of a costs order — which required Government to pay for both sides of the legal battle — or any other legal expenses that may have been run up. Walter Roban, the Minister of Home Affairs, said yesterday that the case was important to Bermuda’s people and that the Government wanted to go to the highest court of appeal to “get it right”. However, Rod Ferguson, one of the parties in the landmark case, said stringing out the legal battle would hurt Bermuda. He said: “The Government’s efforts to repeal same-sex marriage have come at quite a cost, not only monetarily, but also in terms of the impact on Bermuda’s LGBT community, and our island’s reputation overseas. The courts have not found merit in the Government’s legal defence thus far and are highly unlikely to do so upon appeal.” OutBermuda, a gay rights charity, also said it was disappointed by the Privy Council move. Zakiya Johnson Lord, director of OutBermuda, said: “Our courts have consistently reaffirmed the equal right of same-sex couples to marry. To fan the flames of discrimination is irresponsible and costly, on all levels. We want to come together. Marriage equality has come to our shores. Let’s put this in the ‘done’ column and keep moving forward together as a people.” The announcement put the island back in the international media spotlight. NBC News in America, the Jamaica Gleaner and other media organisations all reported the story. However, a spokesman for Preserve Marriage, a campaign that fought to keep a ban on same-sex marriage, welcomed the decision to go to the Privy Council. Melvyn Bassett, the group’s chairman, said: “We are pleased that the Government is doing its best to represent the views of the obvious thousands of Bermudians, as well as those shared by Preserve Marriage and Family Bermuda.”
2018. December 14. A last-ditch legal attempt to restore a ban on same-sex marriage was mounted by the Government yesterday. Notice was given to the Court of Appeal to ask permission to take the case to London’s Privy Council. The Government said the matter was important to the island’s people and involved complex legal points that should be heard by the highest court of appeal for Bermuda. Walter Roban, the Deputy Premier and Minister of Home Affairs, said: “Constitutional issues are important issues and this government wants to get it right.” Initial applicant Rod Ferguson accused the Government of “playing politics with the right to same-sex marriage” and said its actions had hurt the Bermudian LGBTQ community as well as the island’s reputation overseas. Campaign group OutBermuda urged ministers to stop wasting taxpayers’ money on “futile appeals”. The decision to try and take the case to the Privy Council came after a ruling by the Court of Appeal made same-sex marriage legal again last month. The application was made just before a 21-day deadline was reached. The Court of Appeal last month dismissed the Government’s claim that former Chief Justice Ian Kawaley was wrong to strike down parts of the Domestic Partnership Act, which was passed to replace same-sex marriage with a civil partnership arrangement. A packed courtroom erupted in cheers as Sir Scott Baker, president of the Court of Appeal, announced the decision. The Court of Appeal also has the role of deciding if permission is given for a plaintiff to go to the Privy Council. The Privy Council then considers if an appeal has merit and if it will hear the case or not. “The Government’s position is that the issues involved in these matters are of general public importance to the people of Bermuda and involve complex and difficult issues of law which are appropriate for consideration by the Privy Council,” a government spokeswoman said yesterday. The Domestic Partnership Act was passed in December 2017. It recognized same-sex marriages that had already happened, but banned any more and offered domestic partnerships instead. Mr Ferguson launched a legal action in February against the Act, particularly the clause that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. He was later joined in the action by Maryellen Jackson and gay rights charity OutBermuda. Mr Justice Kawaley ruled the DPA was against the Constitution in May and the Government appealed the decision. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge and reinstated same-sex marriages. The Privy Council’s website said its judicial arm had to be satisfied that a case raised “a point of general public importance” before it heard an appeal. Mr Ferguson said: “The Government’s efforts to repeal same-sex marriage have come at quite a cost, not only monetarily, but also in terms of the impact on Bermuda’s LGBT community, and our island’s reputation overseas. The courts have not found merit in the Government’s legal defence thus far, and are highly unlikely to do so upon appeal. At this point, an appeal to the Privy Council would merely serve to suit a political purpose. I implore the Government to stop playing politics with the right to same-sex marriage. Let the law uphold the dignity of all Bermudians.” Mark Pettingill, lawyer for Mr Ferguson, hoped the Government would think about its course of action. He said: “Hopefully, this is a position to review carefully their prospects of a successful appeal to the Privy Council and the consideration of the costs and the very real likelihood that they simply will not succeed. I hope in this situation that common sense prevails as opposed to political motivation and that good law prevails as opposed to pushing a manifesto promise further than it has to go.” He added: “We are where we are and I think we need to move on. “We can’t flip-flop any further. As a jurisdiction, we will be a laughing stock, in my eyes, of the right-thinking international community, which includes all of our major trading partners, all of our major sources of tourism, all of the places that we, as Bermudians, like to visit. When we speak about that group of other countries, we’re talking about our closest friends and neighbors.” Craig Cannonier, the One Bermuda Alliance leader, said last night: “Government’s decision to spend potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars appealing the same sex ruling is a kick in the teeth to Mrs and Mrs Bermuda, whose shoulders are burdened by the weight of new taxes. “And at a time when schools do not even have working fire alarms, how can Government possibly justify even further expenditure on this issue? People must start taking notice of — and question — Government’s priorities.” Mr Cannonier said messages circulated before the appeal application was announced about “a possible march on Parliament” today to call for further court action from the Government. He asked: “Did Government cave in to the threat of the kind of marches they helped to orchestrate while in Opposition?” Mr Cannonier said: “The One Bermuda Alliance has stated that this was a matter for the courts and that it would abide by the court rulings. Three times the courts have ruled in favour of same-sex marriage. It is time this Government got the message and put the enormous amount of money needed to pursue this case to the Privy Council to better use — starting with working school fire alarms.” OutBermuda spokesman Adrian Hartnett-Beasley said: “Bermudians are a very fair-minded and patient people. We strongly believe, however, that enough is enough. It is time to end futile appeals that have already wasted hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars. Let’s agree to not waste even one more.” OutBermuda director Zakiya Johnson Lord said: “Our courts have consistently reaffirmed the equal right of same-sex couples to marry. To fan the flames of discrimination is irresponsible and costly, on all levels. We want to come together. Marriage equality has come to our shores. Let’s put this in the “done” column and keep moving forward together as a people.”
2018. December 1. The cost of a top London barrister for the Government’s battle against same-sex marriage was “greatly exaggerated”, the home affairs minister said yesterday. Walter Roban said that the estimated fee for James Guthrie QC was $61,188 — not the $200,000 to $400,000 suggested by sources. Mr Guthrie appeared for the Government in a Court of Appeal case, which also involved Rod Ferguson and others, who sought to restore marriage equality in Bermuda after it was removed by a law designed to replace marriage for gay people with a civil partnership arrangement. The appeals court ruled in favour of a restoration of same-sex marriage, although the Government could still take the case to the Privy Council in London, the island’s final court of appeal. The home affairs ministry said: “On November 26, the Minister of Home Affairs committed to the public that, once a final figure has been determined regarding the appeal, he would provide that figure. Government is not yet aware of any costs filed by the opposing counsels.” The ministry said the cost of Mr Guthrie’s legal services was $53,339.80, with another $7,848.21 spent on travel and accommodation.
2018. November 27. The Bermuda Government could face a legal bill “in the millions” for the fight against same-sex marriage if it appeals to the Privy Council, a lawyer involved in the case warned yesterday. Rod Attride-Stirling, who represented parties including Maryellen Jackson and gay rights charity OutBermuda, said in addition to paying for a British lawyer, the Government will have to pay the legal expenses of both sides of the Court of Appeal hearing. He added: “The Government have a right to appeal. But the cost to date for the Government will be in the millions of dollars and at some point the Government will have to stop and consider whether it is fiscally responsible to continue to throw money at this. There is a costs order, and it was reported that they may have spent $400,000 hiring James Guthrie, who is one of the leading Queen’s Counsel in this area of practice. I don’t know, but I suspect that he will be telling them that this judgment is unappeasable.” Mr Attride-Stirling said: “Of course, it is new law and whenever you have an issue that is new law, they can appeal it. I believe the result will be the same. I don’t think this is appealable.” The Government said the cost of the legal battle so far had not been added up, but that the figure will be released when available. Mr Attride-Stirling said the case was won on two legal grounds. The first was the section that revoked same-sex marriage had a religious purpose. Mr Attride-Stirling explained: “There is case law that says you are not permitted in a secular society, in a democratic society, to ever pass legislation for a religious purpose. The Court of Appeal accepted the evidence, and there was quite a bit of evidence, including statements by Wayne Furbert, MP, and an admission by Walton Brown, MP, that those provisions were being introduced to address religious concerns. On that basis alone the revocation provisions failed. We satisfied the judges that if we won on that basis, the rest of it was academic, but the judges went on to consider the effect.” Mr Attride-Stirling said the effect of the provision would be to infringe on freedom of conscience, which is protected by the Bermuda Constitution. He added: “We were able to satisfy the court there were people who had a deeply held belief, a conscientiously held belief, in the institution of marriage. It’s easy to imagine a gay person living in Bermuda that values marriage highly, has a strong belief in marriage, and that belief can be based on religious grounds or cultural grounds. There can be an atheist who has a strongly held belief in marriage. Modern examples of constitutionally protected conscientious beliefs include being a vegan, being a pacifist, wanting to join a trade union or be opposed joining a trade union.” Mr Attride-Stirling said constitutional rights could be limited with evidence of justification, but the Government provided none. The Government has still to reveal if it will appeal the latest set back to the Privy Council, which sits in London. However, Mr Attride-Stirling predicted the Privy Council would agree with the Court of Appeal. He added: “You can never be certain, but I can say with a high degree of confidence that the Privy Council would decide it the same.” Mr Attride-Stirling said someone had suggested that the Government might use a Privy Council ruling as part of an argument for independence, but he dismissed the idea. He said: “The [Progressive Labour Party] have said categorically that if they ever took Bermuda independent, they would retain the right of appeal to the Privy Council, so whether Bermuda remains a British territory or not, we would have right of appeal to the Privy Council. Our Court of Appeal would likely look the same also, so being independent will not whatsoever alter the legal decisions.” Friday’s ruling — which legalized same-sex marriage in Bermuda for the second time — received international attention. Huffington Post, the Jamaica Observer and news agency Reuters all published stories on the decision. The ruling will also affect cruise ships registered in the island, including Carnival and Cunard vessels. A spokesman for Carnival said yesterday: “We are pleased to see a favourable outcome for equality and the LGBTQ community.”
2018. November 26. Campaign group Preserve Marriage said the Courts have “disregarded” the laws passed by Government in a ruling that made same-sex marriage legal again. A spokesman for the group said: “Preserve Marriage and Family Bermuda continues to support the views, of what we believe to be, the large majority of Bermuda’s population and the government’s decision to affirm traditional marriage in Bermuda. Members of Preserve Marriage did attend the Appeals Court, and it is our opinion that the Courts continue to disregard the laws passed by the newly elected government, that upheld the views of the people of Bermuda, that the union of marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman. This was passed with bipartisan support in both Parliament, and the Senate, which are the bodies of Government that represent the people of Bermuda to create the laws which govern our beloved country.” The spokesman added: “Although we are not a legal organisation, Preserve Marriage and Family Bermuda supports the fundamental principle that the legislature passes the laws of the country, and the courts interpret the intent of a given law.” The spokesman said that while the Government considers how to proceed, the organisation will work to expand its role in the community. He said: “This will be done by focusing on supporting marriages and families through associations and partnerships with existing organisations, and by hosting various seminars and special programmes, we hope to strengthen the families of Bermuda, which in turn help to strengthen the communities. Preserve Marriage and Family Bermuda will also continue to pursue our original mandate, by supporting our government in this important fight to preserve traditional marriage in Bermuda.” Last year the Government tabled and approved the Domestic Partnership Act, which was intended to replace same-sex marriages with domestic partnership. But the Court of Appeal ruled on Friday that provisions in the act to ban same-sex marriage were invalid as they had a primarily religious purpose. They further found the provisions were unconstitutional as it went against the protected freedom of conscience. Government has not confirmed if it will appeal the decision to London’s Privy Council. Walter Roban, Minister of Home Affairs, said on Friday: “There are important issues at stake in this case and this Government will fully consider the legal position and the fundamental Constitutional issues in coming to a decision on next steps.”
2018. November 24. A ruling by the Court of Appeal to allow same-sex marriage in Bermuda could have international implications, a lawyer involved in the case said yesterday. Rod Attride-Stirling, who represented Maryellen Jackson and OutBermuda, said the judgment could be “the most important decision the country has ever produced” because it was the first to find in favour of same-sex marriage on the grounds of freedom of conscience. He said: “No one has done this before. In all of the European Convention cases, they all dealt only with sexual orientation discrimination because that was considered the easy approach. This is revolutionary. This sets a precedent, a massive precedent, for other jurisdictions. It’s an incredibly important judgment for all of us in Bermuda and beyond.” Mr Attride-Stirling explained the decision could be used to open doors for equal rights in countries which do not protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation. He said: “The problem that many countries have is they don’t have sexual orientation discrimination protection, so they didn’t have that to hang their hat on. We just opened up a whole new avenue for marriage equality by arguing freedom of conscience. All those countries will now have the ability of running a whole new argument, and I expect to see more and more countries run arguments like these.” Mr Attride-Stirling said the Cayman Islands were set to hear arguments about same-sex marriage in February, and that he expected the freedom of conscience argument will be put before the courts there. The Bermuda Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, but section 8 does protect freedom of conscience, which Mr Attride-Stirling argued was breached by the Domestic Partnership Act. The Court of Appeal in a written judgment agreed with the decision of former Chief Justice Ian Kawaley that the state could not pass “a law of general application” that favored people who were against same-sex marriage. Sir Scott Baker, president of the Court of Appeal, wrote: “Section 8 of the Constitution is there to protect the beliefs of minorities and their freedom of conscience. Their freedom of conscience matters and is not lightly to be interfered with. Indeed, no evidence has been advanced by the appellant to justify that interference in the present case.” He added: “It is true that the draughtsman of the Bermuda Constitution 50 years ago is unlikely to have had same-sex marriage in the forefront of his mind, or indeed in his mind at all, but that is not the point. It was drafted with sufficient flexibility to protect everyone’s freedom of conscience in a changing world. Interference with that freedom can be by both positive and negative acts, in this instance by the negative act of preventing same-sex couples having the right to marry.” Government can apply to appeal the case to the Privy Council in London. However, Mr Attride-Stirling said if the case did go to the Privy Council, it would be heard a panel of judges with “probably the most liberal bent we have ever had”. Mr Attride-Stirling said: “It’s led by Lady Hale, who is the first female head of the English Supreme Court and one of the leading human rights lawyers in the UK. We relied on many of her judgments in this case. They recently promoted Lady Justice Arden to the Supreme Court in England, who will therefore sit on the Privy Council. We have in the Privy Council an amazing court and I don’t know if the Crown intend to go there, but if they do I think we would get a good reception.” Mr Attride-Stirling added that if the Privy Council backed the freedom of conscience argument, it would give it added weight around the world. He said: “On something like this, where freedom of conscience is everywhere, a decision would be binding everywhere that still recognizes the Privy Council.”
2018. November 24. Same-sex marriage became legal again yesterday after a landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal. The court dismissed the Government’s claim that former Chief Justice Ian Kawaley was wrong to strike down sections of the Domestic Partnership Act, which was passed to replace same-sex marriage with a civil partnership arrangement. The packed courtroom erupted with loud cheers as Sir Scott Baker, president of the Court of Appeal, announced the decision. They broke into cheers again half an hour later when the court refused to delay the effect of its judgment. The Government could still appeal the decision to the Privy Council, the final court of appeal for Bermuda. Maryellen Jackson, who joined Roderick Ferguson and OutBermuda as respondents in the case, said it was an “amazing experience” to hear the decision. She added: “It means everything. It means I can stay in Bermuda, I can have a life like everybody else has. I can aspire to having that and building that for myself, for my family, and be like everyone else.” Ms Jackson said in a joint statement with Mr Ferguson: “Equality under the law is every Bermudian’s birthright. Bermuda’s LGBTQ community is strong and proud. When our voices join together, we will be heard, and we will continue to make progress.” Mark Pettingill, Mr Ferguson’s lawyer, said: “We always felt that it was motivated by a religious purpose. That argument was upheld and we cannot be more thrilled. I hope the Government get a full and proper written opinion, as they should do, to read through this judgment very carefully, and arrive at the conclusion that it’s probably folly and not waste any more of the taxpayer’s money in this cause.” He added: “The sun is going to come up tomorrow. Hopefully, some people will get married and will get on with their lives. That’s where we need to be at now.” Bermudian Faith Bridges, who was in the courtroom with her wife Carolyn Altman, from the US, said she hoped that the decision meant an end to a long-running legal battle. She said: “We were nervous. We didn’t know what the answer was going to be or that they would come to the right conclusion. Either way, those who want to get married will, be it here or somewhere else. We were married away, but we hope this will mean that people who want to get married in our country are able to.” Mrs Altman added: “It’s validation. It’s good to be recognized here, without any doubts.” Winston Godwin, who won the landmark case that opened the door to same-sex marriage last year, said he was relieved by the latest ruling. Mr Godwin said: “I do hope they won’t bring this to the Privy Council. How many times do we have to justify our love and fight this? How many people does it take? Love won in the past, love won again and now today love was reaffirmed.” He said the ruling sent a message to the LGBTQ community that they are respected in Bermuda, and their relationships are of equal value. Zakiya Johnson Lord, spokeswoman for gay rights charity OutBermuda, said: “This ruling makes history for Bermuda and our nation’s dedication to equality and fairness for all citizens, including our LGBTQ families. We believe there is nothing more fundamental than the right to marry the one we love.” The Government can apply for the matter to be heard by London’s Privy Council within the next 21 days. If the Privy Council agreed to hear the case, it could stay the effect of the Court of Appeal judgment. Kathy Lynn Simmons, Attorney-General, said the Government would consider the judgment before it made a decision on its next move. Sir Scott said in a written judgment that section 53 of the DPA — which prohibited same-sex marriage — went against a Constitutional right to freedom of conscience. He added the section was invalid because it was designed to satisfy the “mainly religious” demands of campaign group Preserve Marriage Bermuda. Sir Scott wrote: “Introducing a comprehensive scheme for same-sex relationships has nothing whatever to do with section 53. Indeed the remainder of the Act introduces civil partnerships for all couples, not just those of the same sex. Nor is section 53 in the Act for meeting the expectations of the LGBT community; the reverse is the case. As to mitigating the adverse publicity for Bermuda, this could only apply to the other provisions in the DPA giving same-sex couples along with others the right to enter civil partnerships.” Sir Scott added: “The one purpose that did relate to the revocation provision is satisfying the religious demands of the opponents of same-sex couples — a religious purpose.” Walter Roban, Minister of Home Affairs, said yesterday the Government had considered the viewpoints of all sides before tabling the DPA. He added: “In considering whether to appeal this case, we must weigh the significant implications for the expectation of Bermudians that laws passed by their elected representatives and that reflect their democratically expressed views will be upheld. There are important issues at stake in this case and this government will fully consider the legal position and the fundamental constitutional issues in coming to a decision on next steps.”
2018. November 10. Same-sex marriage gives gay couples a “stamp of approval” not provided by domestic partnerships, a lawyer argued yesterday. Mark Pettingill, who argued against a government appeal to reverse a Supreme Court decision to reinstate same-sex marriages, added that the removal of the right sent a clear signal of disapproval. He said: “To remove this recognition is to make a statement that the group from who it is removed is not worthy — that in some way it is wrong for them to be married.” Mr Pettingill was speaking as he gave his closing arguments at the end of a three-day hearing in the Court of Appeal, where James Guthrie QC questioned the Constitutional grounds for an earlier ruling that struck down a ban on same-sex unions. Mr Pettingill said that the Domestic Partnership Act that replaced same-sex marriage with civil unions inflicted a “negative social judgment by removing access to legal marriage from one group — and one group only”. He added: “It can’t help but be seen as lesser. That is what marriage gives and domestic partnership does not — the stamp of social approval and acceptance, and the ability to manifest the highest standard of love.” Mr Guthrie claimed Mr Pettingill had interpreted the Bermuda Constitution the way he wanted it — not the way it was. He argued that UK legal cases had protected non-religious creeds such as pacifism and veganism, but did not extend to a belief in assisted suicide. Mr Guthrie said: “What is being protected is not something specific, but something more general. Spiritual or philosophical convictions which have an identifiable formal content.” The lawyer also argued that the DPA — including a clause which prohibited same-sex marriage — was not rooted “solely” in religious belief. Mr Guthrie added the belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman was not linked to any one religion. He said Walton Brown, who tabled the legislation as Minister of Home Affairs, has said the Bill was intended as a compromise to ensure “peace”. Mr Guthrie added: “If the purpose of the DPA was political, then it didn’t have a solely religious purpose.” The Attorney-General’s Chambers argued in the initial grounds of appeal that a decision by Ian Kawaley, the former chief justice, was not valid under the Constitution. The document that laid out the Government’s case said that Mr Justice Kawaley made a mistake when he found that freedom of conscience, which includes freedom of thought and religion, could be applied to same-sex marriage. The Government’s legal team also argued that the Chief Justice stretched the definition of “creed” when he ruled that the DPA, which replaced marriage with a civil partnership arrangement, went against the Constitution. Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons found in May 2017 that a restriction of marriage to a man and a woman was against the Human Rights Act. The ruling made same-sex marriages possible and the One Bermuda Alliance administration in power at the time decided not to appeal. But the Progressive Labour Party government, which came to power in July last year, replaced same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships a few months later. Mr Pettingill took up the case on behalf of Roderick Ferguson, a Bermudian who contested the civil unions as unconstitutional. The case was joined by the charity OutBermuda and Bermudian Maryellen Jackson, both of whom were represented by lawyer Rod Attride-Stirling. Mr Justice Kawaley found that a ban on same-sex marriage was at odds with the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of conscience and creed, and granted same sex couples the right to marry.
2018. November 7. Same-sex marriage advocates have said their “eyes are on the prize” as the issue comes before the Court of Appeal today. The hearing, scheduled for three days, will cover the Government’s appeal of a Supreme Court ruling that the Domestic Partnership Act was unconstitutional. That June 6 landmark judgment was the latest twist in a legal saga dating back to July 2016. Roderick Ferguson, a Bermudian who contested the civil unions as unconstitutional, said: “The DPA is a discriminatory law, plain and simple. Discrimination is a hostile action and that hostility wreaks damage on the recipients. We may not be able to eradicate discrimination against LGBT Bermudians in our society, but we mustn’t enshrine it into law, and I am shocked by the vigor with which the Government is trying to do just that.” He added that he remained grateful for the original decision, and hoped it would be upheld by the Court of Appeal. In a joint statement, he and co-applicant Maryellen Jackson, said: “We are humbled by the support given to us beginning with our original trial and we are staying our course in defending this appeal by the Government. There is much work to be done on the island to advance diversity and inclusion. This is one way that we are able to help affirm the experience of gay and lesbian Bermudians who recognize the importance of the institution of marriage for protecting their families.” Adrian Hartnett-Beasley, spokesman for OutBermuda, added: “We have one aim: equality under the law for all loving Bermuda couples and our families. This week, we believe our highest court can only reach the same decision the Supreme Court made in June, when it ruled the Domestic Partnership Act violates our Constitution protecting not only our freedom of conscience but also by outlawing discrimination on the basis of creed. All our eyes are on the prize of equality.” The legal battle started when Winston Godwin, a Bermudian, and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, were turned down by the Registrar-General’s office when they tried to file marriage banns two years ago. Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons found in May 2017 that a restriction of marriage to a man and a woman was against the Human Rights Act. The ruling made same-sex marriages possible and the One Bermuda Alliance administration in power at the time decided not to appeal. But the Progressive Labour Party government replaced same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships in December 2017. Ian Kawaley, the former Chief Justice, found that a ban on same-sex marriage was at odds with the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of conscience and creed, granting same sex couples the right to marry. That ruling was put on hold for six weeks to allow the Government time to review its options and the Attorney-General’s Chambers filed an appeal weeks later. According to court documents, the Government will argue Mr Justice Kawaley erred when he found that freedom of conscience — which includes freedom of thought and religion — could be applied to same-sex marriage.
2018. November 6. The Bermuda Government’s legal grounds to revoke same-sex marriage can today be revealed in The Royal Gazette. The case, set to go before the Court of Appeal tomorrow, is scheduled for three days. The Attorney-General, represented by James Guthrie QC, a prominent English barrister, will challenge the constitutional basis for an earlier ruling that struck down a ban on the unions. Ian Kawaley, the former Chief Justice, found that a ban on same-sex marriage was at odds with the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of conscience and creed. The landmark judgment, on June 6, was the latest twist in a legal saga dating back to July 2016. But the notice of appeal, obtained by The Royal Gazette, argued that the grounds for Mr Justice Kawaley’s decision were not valid under the Constitution. The document that laid out the Government’s case said that Mr Justice Kawaley made a mistake when he found that freedom of conscience, which includes freedom of thought and religion, could be applied to same-sex marriage. It also maintained that the Chief Justice was wrong when he used previous cases that “depend on an element of compulsion or coercion which is absent in the present case”. The Attorney-General’s Chambers will also challenge Mr Justice Kawaley’s decision to “ignore European case law” that the prohibition of same-sex marriage does not go against the European Convention on Human Rights — and that “social policy will normally be for Parliament, and not the court, to decide”. The Government’s legal team also argued that the Chief Justice stretched the definition of “creed” when he ruled that the Domestic Partnership Act, which replaced marriage with a civil partnership arrangement, went against the Constitution. The government appeal argued that the Constitution exempted marriage from laws designed to prevent discrimination. The legal battle started when Winston Godwin, a Bermudian, and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, were turned down by the Registrar-General’s office when they tried to file marriage banns two years ago. Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons found in May 2017 that a restriction of marriage to a man and a woman was against the Human Rights Act. The ruling made same-sex marriages possible and the One Bermuda Alliance administration in power at the time decided not to appeal. But the Progressive Labour Party government replaced same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships in December 2017 and civil unions became law in February. Mark Pettingill, the lawyer who represented Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche, took up the case on behalf of Roderick Ferguson, a Bermudian who contested the civil unions as unconstitutional. The case was joined by the charity OutBermuda and Bermudian Maryellen Jackson, both of whom were represented by lawyer Rod Attride-Stirling. Mr Justice Kawaley’s ruling in June overturned the ban, and gay couples were once again granted the right to marry. But the ruling was put on hold for six weeks to allow the Government time to review its options and the Attorney-General’s Chambers filed its appeal only weeks later, The controversy set religious groups against gay rights campaigners and the island was criticized in overseas media for its anti-same sex marriage stance and for being the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage and ban it again, Chris Bryant, a Labour MP in the British Parliament in January asked Boris Johnson, then the Foreign Secretary, to block the “entirely retrograde step” to backtrack on marriage equality.
2018. November 3. A top London barrister will argue the Government’s case against same-sex marriage despite an objection from the Bar Council, The Royal Gazette can reveal. James Guthrie QC will appear on behalf of the Crown next week when it appeals against a Supreme Court ruling that struck down parts of the Domestic Partnership Act. The move came after at least one lawyer for the other side challenged a request for the UK counsel to conduct the hearing. The Bar Council also backed a refusal and said the Attorney-General’s Chambers had failed to show there were no local barristers with the expertise to argue the case. But Chief Justice Narinder Hargun granted the order for Mr Guthrie’s special admission to the Bar after a hearing last month. Walton Brown, then the home affairs minister, confirmed in July that the Government would appeal against the landmark court judgment that reversed the same-sex marriage ban. Former Chief Justice Ian Kawaley ruled in June that parts of the Domestic Partnership Act, which aimed to replace same-sex marriage with civil partnerships, were unconstitutional. A request for a special practising certificate must be made to the Bar Council for an overseas lead counsel before they can appear in Bermuda courts. Permission was sought for Mr Guthrie, a member of London-based 3 Hare Court, to act for the Crown. The website of his London chambers said Mr Guthrie, who has appeared in local cases in the past, was a “leading silk in civil liberties and human rights work”. Legal teams acting for the respondents, including Rod Ferguson, Maryellen Jackson and gay rights charity OutBermuda, were given the chance to object to Mr Guthrie and at least one challenge was submitted. The Bermuda Bar Association does not comment on special admission applications. But it is understood the Bar Council, which is made up of nine elected members, as well as the Attorney-General in an ex officio capacity, felt the Attorney-General’s Chambers failed to meet the required criteria. The Bar Association website has an outline of the procedure for hiring an overseas lawyer. The website said: “Under the guidelines, Bar Council review the propriety of the use of foreign leading counsel for each hearing in which a client wishes them to appear before the Bermuda courts and for each application for a work permit from the Department of Immigration. If Bar Council determines that the use of foreign leading counsel is appropriate, then it issues a special practising certificate to that counsel for that hearing.” The home affairs minister consults the Bar Council for its view on whether an overseas lawyer will be admitted. The council must consider the legal complexity of the case and its importance before deciding if there are “exceptional circumstances” that need foreign expertise. It also takes into account the availability of local counsel who can “adequately present the case”. The application was granted by Mr Justice Hargun last month after submissions were made by representatives of the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Bar Council. It is believed a work permit has also been secured but no comment was received from the Ministry of Home Affairs after requests from the Gazette. Bermuda is the only country in the world to have allowed same-sex marriage then banned it. The Domestic Partnership Act reversed a Supreme Court ruling from May last year, which had paved the way for gay couples to marry in Bermuda and on island-registered ships around the world. But Mr Justice Kawaley ruled the legislation was at odds with the Constitution, which protects the right to freedom of conscience and outlaws discrimination on the basis of creed.
2018. October 13. The legal profession’s governing body has backed an objection to a bid to hire a top London barrister to challenge the Supreme Court ruling that quashed a ban on same-sex marriage. It is understood the Bar Council has told the Government that it does not support the application for James Guthrie QC to lead the Government’s appeal. The council is believed to have ruled the Attorney-General’s Chambers failed to show there were no island barristers with the appropriate expertise to argue the case. Walton Brown, the home affairs minister, confirmed in July that the Government would appeal the landmark court judgment that reversed the same-sex marriage ban. It is now up to the immigration department, part of his ministry, to decide if a temporary work permit will be approved for the QC. Mark Pettingill, lawyer for Rod Ferguson, one of the respondents in the case, said yesterday he was not surprised by the Bar Council’s decision. He added: “There are criteria that must be met in order for an application to be made to bring in overseas counsel and in this case the Bar clearly was not satisfied that it was warranted. What will be interesting is that it is a matter for the minister who announced the appeal whether he adheres to, or takes the position of, the Bar Council in allowing Mr Guthrie to come in or not.” Then Chief Justice Ian Kawaley struck down parts of the Domestic Partnership Act, which aimed to replace same-sex marriage with civil partnerships, in June. The appeal is due to be heard next month. A request for a special practising certificate must be made to the Bar Council for an overseas lead counsel before they can appear in Bermuda courts. Permission was sought for Mr Guthrie, a member of London-based 3 Hare Court, to act for the Crown. The website of his London chambers said Mr Guthrie, who has appeared in island cases in the past, was a “leading silk in civil liberties and human rights work”. Legal teams acting for the respondents, which also include gay rights charity OutBermuda and Maryellen Jackson, were given chance to object to Mr Guthrie and at least one challenge was submitted. The Bermuda Bar Association said it cannot comment on special admission applications. But it is understood the Bar Council, which is made up of nine elected members, as well as the Attorney-General in an ex officio capacity, felt the Attorney-General’s Chambers failed to meet the required criteria. The Bar Association website has an outline of the procedure for hiring an overseas lawyer. The website said: “Under the guidelines, Bar Council review the propriety of the use of foreign leading counsel for each hearing in which a client wishes them to appear before the Bermuda courts and for each application for a work permit from the Department of Immigration. If Bar Council determines that the use of foreign leading counsel is appropriate, then it issues a special practising certificate to that counsel for that hearing.” The minister consults the Bar Council for its view on whether an overseas lawyer will be admitted under immigration laws. The council must consider the legal complexity of the case and its importance before deciding if there are “exceptional circumstances” that need foreign expertise. It also takes into account the availability of local counsel who can “adequately present the case”. Bermuda is the only country in the world to have allowed same-sex marriage then banned it. The Domestic Partnership Act reversed a Supreme Court ruling from May last year, which had paved the way for gay couples to marry in Bermuda and on island-registered ships around the world. But Mr Justice Kawaley ruled the legislation was at odds with the Constitution, which protects the right to freedom of conscience and outlaws discrimination on the basis of creed. The Government did not respond to a request for comment yesterday.
2018. September 15. A top London barrister is understood to have been asked to represent the Government in an appeal against a Supreme Court decision to quash a ban on same-sex marriage. It is estimated James Guthrie, QC, who has appeared in island courts before, could cost the public purse between $200,000 and $400,000. Mr Guthrie acted for the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2007 as the family of Rebecca Middleton, a teenage Canadian tourist murdered in 1996, tried to bring fresh charges in the case. He is a member of London-based 3 Hare Court, and the chambers said he was a “leading silk in civil liberties and human rights work”. A request for a Special Practising Certificate must be made to the Bar Council for an overseas lead council before they can appear in Bermuda Courts. A source close to the case said yesterday: “We find it somewhat interesting that a human rights lawyer would be prepared to act for a government that is hell-bent on limiting equality for same-sex couples. This is now the third time that this significant matter is going to court and the cost to the taxpayer is now being increased further with an attempt to bring in foreign counsel to argue it, when we have a Bermudian Solicitor-General and Bermudian counsels perfectly capable of addressing the key legal issues.” Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs, confirmed in July that the Government was to appeal the landmark court judgment that reversed the same-sex marriage ban. The move came a month after then Chief Justice Ian Kawaley struck down parts of the Domestic Partnership Act, which aimed to replace same-sex marriage with civil partnerships, on Constitutional grounds. A special admission application is understood to have been made to the Bar Council for Mr Guthrie to act for the Crown when the case is called in the Court of Appeal in November. Legal teams acting for the respondents, which include gay rights charity OutBermuda and Maryellen Jackson, are believed to have until the end of this month to object. Bermuda is the only country in the world to allow same-sex marriage then revoke it. The Domestic Partnership Act reversed a Supreme Court ruling from May last year which paved the way for gay couples to marry in Bermuda and on island-registered ships around the world. The legislation came into force on June 1 and offered both gay and heterosexual civil unions instead. But Mr Justice Kawaley ruled the Act was at odds with the Constitution, which protects the right to freedom of conscience and outlaws discrimination on the basis of creed. Mr Guthrie’s online profile revealed he has “considerable experience of litigation” in Commonwealth jurisdictions. One entry said: “Consistently recommended in the main law directories as a leading silk in civil liberties and human rights work, he frequently undertakes Privy Council appeals in such cases, including ‘death row’ cases.” The Bar Council said it would “not be appropriate” to provide details on special admission applications. Mr Guthrie directed inquiries to the Attorney-General’s office. The Government did not respond to a request for comment. The veteran barrister appeared for the DPP when Ms Middleton’s family tried to get fresh charges brought against two suspects in their daughter’s killing. In a Supreme Court judicial review, he argued against Cherie Booth, QC, the wife of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who asked for the case to be reopened. Then Chief Justice Richard Ground agreed that the case should not be reopened.
2018. August 25. The Government’s appeal over the lifting of the ban on same-sex marriage will be heard by the Supreme Court from November 7 to 9. The appeal was launched after former chief justice Ian Kawaley ruled in favour of marriage equality in June. Melvyn Bassett, chairman of Preserve Marriage, which leads the fight against same-sex marriage, told The Royal Gazette: “We believe we have done almost as much as we can to encourage the community to express their views. We believe we have done our part to encourage the Government to continue to do what the people have expressed they would like in relation to the legislation that was passed. We anticipate that the Court of Appeal will honour the Government’s appeal.” Asked whether he believed there would ever be a time for same-sex marriage in Bermuda, Mr Bassett responded: “Maybe, but right now there are many people here in this community who are fighting to ensure that does not happen, for the sake of our children, during our lifetime.” Tony Brannon, an LGBTQ activist who launched a petition in 2015 in an attempt to legalize same-sex marriage, said: “I have been very vocal for the past three years and I don’t see that I can do much more, except for going out on social media and reminding people that these guys are going down the wrong road in the 21st century. If they win and it goes to the Privy Council, the legal minds I speak to tell me it will be a slam dunk for the LGBTQ community. They are going to lose again — at least that’s what I think is going to happen. There are people having to put their hands in their pocket to fight for justice and now it is going to come out of the taxpayers’ fund.” Mr Justice Kawaley’s judgment ruled that parts of the Domestic Partnership Act introduced by the Progressive Labour Party were unconstitutional. The Act was passed in the House of Assembly last December reversing a Supreme Court ruling from May of last year. That ruling declared that same-sex couples have a legal right to marry. The Chief Justice ruled that the act was out of line with the Constitution which protects the right to freedom of conscience and outlaws discrimination on the basis of creed.
2018. August 12. Britain would breach international obligations if it failed to enforce legal recognition for same-sex unions in its Overseas Territories, a former Cayman Islands lawyer has said. Leonardo Raznovich, joint vice-chairman of the International Bar Association’s LGBTI Law Committee, added that a Foreign Office commitment that ministers would work with the British Overseas Territories “so they can drive their own lasting legislative change” was not enough. Mr Raznovich said: “Nothing short of independence will restrict the power of Parliament. The Foreign Office statement is not enough — there is a clear distinction that needs to be made between policy and international law. There is a clear dereliction of duty by the UK Government when it comes to international human rights, particularly as it relates to the LGBT community. They are responsible, and they can’t just say they will continue to ‘encourage and engage’ — that doesn’t work when there are international obligations in place that have been breached.” Mr Raznovich added: “This is for the UK to tell the world — here is a list of obligations under the European Court of Human Rights. You are bound by it, you have to comply. You have five years to catch up. This is what I am trying to push Parliament to do.” He was speaking after the Foreign Office said it welcomed a Bermuda Supreme Court decision “in favour of same-sex marriage rights” — which is to be appealed by the Government. A spokeswoman for the Foreign Office added: “Ministers will continue to encourage and engage with all of the Overseas Territories on these matters so they can drive their own lasting legislative change.” The IBA’s Human Rights Institute wrote to David Burt, the Premier, in June and asked him to accept the court ruling that reinstated gay marriage, which had become legal last year, but was outlawed again by the Domestic Partnership Act months later. The DPA removed full marriage rights for gay people last December and replaced them with civil union-type arrangements available to both gay and heterosexual couples. The IBAHRI acted after Mr Raznovich’s committee highlighted “breaches of international law by the UK Government”. The Human Rights Institute also wrote to Boris Johnson, then British Foreign Secretary, to condemn the UK Government’s failure to order John Rankin, the Governor, to refuse to give Royal Assent to the Domestic Partnership Act. Mr Raznovich, who won a legal challenge to be listed as a dependent on his same-sex partner’s work permit under Caymanian immigration law, said the UK should give its Overseas Territories a timeline to change their legislation. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in favour of legal recognition for same-sex unions, but has not backed full marriage rights for gay people. Mr Raznovich trained as a lawyer in his homeland of Argentina and later qualified as a barrister in England and Wales. He was a principal lecturer at Canterbury Christ Church University in the UK, as well as a law lecturer at the Bodden Law School in the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is also locked in controversy over same-sex marriage and the rights of gay people. Two women were last month granted leave to apply for a judicial review of a Cayman Islands government decision to refuse their application to marry. A UK Foreign Affairs Committee has been set up to examine how the Foreign Office manages its responsibilities to “ensure the security and stability of the UK’s 14 OTs”, including “instances of divergence between the UK and some of the Overseas Territories on issues such as civil rights and financial transparency”. A Bermuda government insider, who asked not to be identified, said there was growing pressure for the introduction of same-sex rights, but that it came mainly from Britain and the European Union. The source said: “It is the obligations that the UK have at the moment with the ECHR and any removal from Brexit doesn’t remove that so it is more a pressure from Europe and the UK rather than an international pressure so far. Pressure is growing but I think that a lot of it is politicking because the UK has to make a decision not only on the decision of SSM, but also on the registration of beneficial owners. I believe the UK will engage and have more direct consultation diplomatically with Bermuda, but they will have to resolve the issue as to whether this is a domestic issue or an international issue under section 62 of the Constitution.” A Government House spokeswoman said: “The Governor remains committed to upholding compliance with the Constitution and international obligations in accordance with his responsibilities. The decision of the Supreme Court in relation to the constitutionality of the Domestic Partnership Act is now the subject of an appeal and it would be inappropriate to comment further on the particular issues in that case.” A spokeswoman for Mr Burt also said it would not be appropriate to discuss a case before the courts.
2018. August 5. An international group of human rights lawyers has asked the Premier to back a Supreme Court decision to lift a ban on same-sex marriages. The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute has written to David Burt and challenged him to show leadership to Caribbean countries that discriminate against gay people. The letter was sent as the Bermuda Government prepares to launch an appeal against a ruling by former Chief Justice Ian Kawaley that allowed gay marriage. IBAHRI also wrote to Boris Johnson, then the UK Foreign Secretary, to condemn the UK Government’s failure to advise John Rankin, the Governor, to refuse to give Royal Assent to the Domestic Partnership Act, which put a block to gay marriage last December. The letter to Mr Burt welcomed the “positive development made by the Bermuda Supreme Court with respect to the human rights of the LGBTI citizens of Bermuda”. It added: “The IBAHRI urges the Government of Bermuda to support fully the judgment of the Supreme Court, implement it in good faith and give leadership to countries of the Caribbean which continue to discriminate against their citizens, contrary to universal human rights on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.” The IBAHRI said the Supreme Court decision is in line with the principle of non-discrimination and equality in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It added the United Nations Human Rights Committee had confirmed that different treatment based on sexual orientation was discrimination under the ICCPR and that equality and respect are values protected in the Charter of the Commonwealth. The letter said: “Following the decision of the Supreme Court, we respectfully urge that the Government of Bermuda adopt a policy of removing all like discrimination against sexual minorities, in both criminal and civil laws, within its own jurisdiction and urging their removal in other countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean. With the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Bermuda, the Government of Bermuda should give leadership and example to neighboring countries in this important area of human rights law and policy.” The letter was dated June 21, about three weeks before Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs, confirmed the Government would appeal the court decision and was signed by IBAHRI chairmen Hans Corell and Michael Kirby. The International Bar Association, established in 1947, has a membership of more than 80,000 lawyers and 190 bar associations and law societies, spanning more than 170 countries. Its letter to Mr Johnson is also dated June 21, a month before Mr Johnson resigned as Foreign Secretary. In it, the IBAHRI expressed “our concern at the failure of the United Kingdom Government to advise his Excellency, the Governor of Bermuda, to withhold the Royal Assent to the seriously discriminatory legislation purportedly adopted by the legislature of Bermuda”. The letter said Mr Rankin signed the Domestic Partnership Act into law after it was debated in UK Parliament in January. It said: “In this way, the United Kingdom Parliament became itself an actor in the deprivation of human rights and equality of LGBTI Bermudan citizens. While the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom [Theresa May] offered apologies at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in April for the past introduction into dominions, colonies and territories of the UK of laws that criminalized LGBTI people, thereby exposing them to legal inequality, hostility and violence, it had the opportunity of avoiding such consequences in the present case but failed to act in accordance with its own laws and asserted principles.” The IBAHRI has written a third letter to Baroness Patricia Scotland, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, to underline its “deep regret” at its silence over same-sex marriage. Bermuda became the only country in the world to allow gay marriage and then revoke it after the Domestic Partnership Act. The DPA reversed a Supreme Court ruling from May last year which paved the way for gay couples to marry in Bermuda and on island-registered ships around the world. The legislation came into force on June 1 and revoked the right of same-sex couples to marry and offered them, and heterosexual couples, civil unions instead, Mr Justice Kawaley ruled the DPA was at odds with the Constitution, which protects the right to freedom of conscience and outlaws discrimination on the basis of creed. The Royal Gazette asked Mr Burt and the Foreign Office for comment, but neither had replied by press time.
2018. August 1. An international group of lawyers has urged Premier David Burt to support the Supreme Court decision to reverse the ban on same-sex marriage. The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute has written to the Premier, calling on him to show leadership to Caribbean countries that discriminate against their gay citizens. It comes after the Bermuda Government launched an appeal last month against a ruling by former Chief Justice Ian Kawaley that allowed gay marriage. IBAHRI also wrote to former British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, to condemn the UK Government’s failure to advise John Rankin, the Governor, to withhold assent to the Domestic Partnership Act, which put a block to gay marriage last December. The letter to Mr Burt welcomed the “positive development made by the Bermuda Supreme Court with respect to the human rights of the LGBTI citizens of Bermuda”. It stated: “The IBAHRI urges the Government of Bermuda to support fully the judgment of the Supreme Court, implement it in good faith, and give leadership to countries of the Caribbean which continue to discriminate against their citizens, contrary to universal human rights on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.” The IBAHRI stated the Supreme Court decision is in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination and equality in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It added the United Nations Human Rights Committee has confirmed that differential treatment based on sexual orientation is discriminatory under the ICCPR, and that equality and respect are values protected in the Charter of the Commonwealth. It continued: “Following the decision of the Supreme Court, we respectfully urge that the Government of Bermuda adopt a policy of removing all like discrimination against sexual minorities, in both criminal and civil laws, within its own jurisdiction and urging their removal in other countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean. With the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Bermuda, the Government of Bermuda should give leadership and example to neighboring countries in this important area of human rights law and policy.” The letter is dated June 21, about three weeks before home affairs minister Walton Brown confirmed the Government would appeal the court decision. It is signed by IBAHRI chairmen Hans Corell and Michael Kirby. The International Bar Association, established in 1947, has a membership of more than 80,000 individual lawyers, and 190 bar associations and law societies, spanning more than 170 countries. Its letter to Mr Johnson is also dated June 21, a month before Mr Johnson resigned as Foreign Secretary. In it, the IBAHRI expressed “our concern at the failure of the United Kingdom Government to advise his Excellency the Governor of Bermuda to withhold the Royal Assent to the seriously discriminatory legislation purportedly adopted by the legislature of Bermuda”. It noted Mr Rankin signed the Domestic Partnership bill into law after it was debated in the UK parliament in January. It said: “In this way, the United Kingdom Parliament became itself an actor in the deprivation of human rights and equality of LGBTI Bermudan citizens. While the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom [Theresa May] offered apologies at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in April for the past introduction into dominions, colonies and territories of the UK of laws that criminalized LGBTI people, thereby exposing them to legal inequality, hostility and violence, it had the opportunity of avoiding such consequences in the present case but failed to act in accordance with its own laws and asserted principles.” The IBAHRI has written a third letter to Commonwealth of Nations Secretary-General Patricia Scotland, stating its “deep regret” at its silence over the issue. Bermuda became the only country in the world to allow gay marriage and then revoke it after the Domestic Partnership Act was passed. The DPA reversed a Supreme Court ruling from May last year which paved the way for gay couples to marry in Bermuda and on island-registered ships around the world. The legislation came into force on June 1 and revoked the right of same-sex couples to marry and offered them, and heterosexual couples, legally recognized civil unions. However, Mr Justice Kawaley found the DPA was inconsistent with the Constitution, which protects the right to freedom of conscience and outlaws discrimination on the basis of creed. The Royal Gazette has approached Mr Burt and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for comment.
2018. July 25. Lords in the UK have suggested that Britain should force Bermuda to legalize same-sex marriage in the same way it forced the island to adopt public registers. Baroness Elizabeth Barker, a Liberal Democrat, questioned the Minister for the Overseas Territories Lord Tariq Ahmad on the issue and asked him: “Why the double standards.” Lord Ahmad said he believed there was no double standard and told the baroness that he had made a “vociferous defence” of the overseas territories to retain autonomy over the issue and domestic issues in general. “The will of the other place was such that the actual will of Parliament was upheld by the Government. We would rather have not been in that position,” he said. Labour Lord Ray Collins of Highbury spoke on the issue, declaring his interest as a half Bermudian. He said: “Bermuda did pass SSM laws … and then we had that overturned. It was agreed to by this government which it shouldn’t have been. When I go out there with my husband will I be able to exercise the same rights? I hope the noble Lord, the minister will stand up for SSM in Bermuda.” Lord Ahmed said that the Government of Bermuda was now appealing that particular decision and the issue would be determined later this year. “We need to ensure that those local issues of justice are played out properly,” he said.
2018. July 11. Deputy Governor Ginny Ferson yesterday backed same-sex marriage in Bermuda “before too long”. Ms Ferson added that the island’s showdown on the issue helped her see perspectives she disagreed with. She admitted that the subject of same-sex marriage could put her at risk of being seen as “controversial”. Ms Ferson said: “I do not agree with that viewpoint, I believe in equal rights for everyone and I very much hope that it will be achieved in Bermuda before too long. But I do appreciate why it is a difficult issue for many people.” Ms Ferson was speaking at Hamilton Rotary Club as she looked back on the “ups and downs, the legacy and the lessons learnt” of her 4½-year tenure on the island. Same-sex marriage in Bermuda was highlighted in April 2015 by entertainer and activist Tony Brannon, who organised a petition in support. But a non-binding referendum in 2016 found a majority against the introduction of both same sex marriage and civil unions. The referendum had a turnout of less than 47 per cent with 14,192 against same-sex marriage and 6.504 in favour. A Supreme Court ruling in May 2017, however, paved the way for same-sex couples to wed. Same-sex marriage was again outlawed by legislators in December that year, when the Domestic Partnerships Act, which offered civil unions to both gay and straight couples, was passed by Parliament. The Act came into effect on June 1 this year but was successfully challenged in the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds less than a week later. Chief Justice Ian Kawaley’s ruling, however, is to be appealed by the Bermuda Government. Ms Ferson told Rotarians that “in the spirit of opening minds and embracing alternative viewpoints”, she wanted to recommend the 2016 BBC documentary Just Call Me Martina. She said the “heart-warming story” was about gay former tennis champion Martina Navratilova, who married her girlfriend in 2014. Ms Ferson said that “regardless of what our parents or church elders have told us about same-sex marriage, I suggest we ask — is it the truth, is it fair to all concerned, will it build good will and better friendship, will it be beneficial to all concerned?” She said that living and working in a small community like Bermuda came with “its delights and its restrictions”, but that she and her husband had been enriched by the island’s diversity. Ms Ferson said that hurricanes also stood out, with four major storms hitting Bermuda during her time on the island — the “double whammy” of Fay and Gonzalo in 2014, Joaquim in 2015 and Nicole in 2016. She added that last year’s America’s Cup was proof of the island’s “talent and professionalism to stage a truly world-class event”. Ms Ferson also mentioned Bermuda Day parades and the camaraderie of Cup Match. She added: “I know I am not the first one to say it, but if only we could bottle that community spirit and apply it to everything we do, Bermuda would be an even more beautiful place to live.” The Deputy Governor, who arrived in Bermuda in December 2013, will leave the island on July 27 for a new diplomatic post in Indonesia — where same-sex marriage is not recognised. She will be replaced at Government House by Alison Crocket, an anti-corruption expert from the UK Foreign Office.
2018. July 5. The Bermuda Government has filed an appeal against the Supreme Court decision to reverse the ban on same-sex marriage. The Ministry of Home Affairs confirmed it has commenced proceedings against Chief Justice Ian Kawaley’s landmark ruling on June 6 to declare parts of the Domestic Partnership Act invalid. Minister Walton Brown said: “We have filed an appeal in this matter. We look forward to having this matter heard by the Court of Appeal.” Reacting, campaigners OutBermuda said: “We will never surrender equality for all Bermudians, and especially the LGBTQ families and couples who deserve it.” Mr Justice Kawaley had ruled in favour of gay Bermudians Rod Ferguson and Maryellen Jackson, who claimed the legislation was unconstitutional. The DPA was passed by Parliament last December to reverse a Supreme Court ruling from May last year which enabled gay couples to marry. The new legislation came into force on June 1, revoking the right of gay couples to marry and offering them, and heterosexual couples, legally recognized civil unions. But the Chief Justice found it was inconsistent with provisions in the Constitution giving the right to freedom of conscience and outlawing discrimination on the basis of creed. The passing of the DPA made Bermuda the only country in the world to have allowed gay marriage and then revoked that right. Mr Ferguson said today: “Just one month ago, LGBTQ Bermudians inched closer to our goal of restoring marriage equality. We regret this ill-advised and costly decision to appeal the Supreme Court’s finding, and we will summon our voices and resources again as a united community to prevail.” OutBermuda, which served as a co-litigant in the original lawsuit, will join again with Mr Ferguson, Ms Jackson and other allies. Adrian Hartnett-Beasley, one of OUTBermuda’s directors, said: “We have strength not only in justice but in our numbers, including our respected faith leaders like Sylvia Hayward-Harris, along with citizen-activists including Julia and Judith Aidoo-Saltus, Chai T., Wesley Methodist Church, and Douglas NeJaime. “We’ve made outstanding progress with our business advocates led by Carnival Corporation and many encouraging Bermudian-owned/based businesses and employers.” Rod Attride Stirling and Mark Pettingill will again provide legal counsel for OutBermuda.
2018. June 15. The list of companies publicly supporting same-sex marriage has grown, with a raft of new additions after an article in The Royal Gazette earlier this week. We reported on Wednesday that 58 businesses — from bars and luxury hotels to law firms, global banks and brokerages — appeared on the online directory of “diversity-friendly” firms. And our story prompted many more to contact marriage equality campaigner Tony Brannon. As of last night, another 35 companies and organisations had asked to be added to the list. Many business owners offered words of support for the campaign for marriage equality, which got a boost last week when the Chief Justice ruled that a new law outlawing gay marriage was unconstitutional. Zoë Hanson, director of Zobec Trust Company, told Mr Brannon in an e-mail: “Zobec, as a local Bermuda business owned and run by Bermudians, fully supports same-sex marriages.” Elaine Murray and Richard Hartley, from the Irish Linen Company, e-mailed: “Who doesn’t love a beautiful rainbow?” John and Alison Young, from the Ledgelets Cottage Colony, wrote: “We stand proudly with you and all the other businesses.” T.J. Armand, executive director of the Bermuda Festival, said: “I am happy to confirm that Bermuda Festival of the Performing Arts would like to join the list of diversity-friendly organisations and businesses. Thank you for your efforts to build this list.” Mr Brannon said he was thrilled the list was growing, as the island waits to find out if the Government will appeal the most recent Supreme Court ruling. “The continued affront to deny marriage equality by the Bermuda Government must be resisted at every level,” he said. Our article prompted the removal of the Bermuda National Library from the list, after a request from the director of the Department of Libraries & Archives. The director explained in an e-mail to Mr Brannon that the library should not have been included because “as a government department it is not appropriate for us to publicly advocate for a public policy position that is contrary to that of the government of the day”. She added: “The library has been and will continue to be a supportive and welcoming place for all Bermuda residents, regardless of their religion, political views, sexual persuasion or gender identity.” Mr Brannon said the library was added a year ago when he first created the list, because he mirrored one maintained by the Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda. Its “rainbow-friendly directory” — set up in 2012 — lists social spaces, shops and services which welcome gay people, as well as local resources for them. One international company on Mr Brannon’s list is cruise giant Carnival, which registers many of its ships in Bermuda and was offering on-board same-sex marriages until the law banning gay marriage, the Domestic Partnership Act, came into force on June 1. Carnival part-funded the recent court challenge against the DPA. According to Pink News, Carnival UK president Josh Weinstein said this week that the company was delighted with the Chief Justice’s ruling. “We will now be working closely with the Bermudan (sic) authorities to understand when we will be able to resume marrying same-sex couples on board,” he was quoted as saying. Chris Bryant, a UK Labour MP, raised the court judgment in the House of Commons the day after it was delivered. He said on June 7: “A British Government in Westminster should not abrogate to themselves powers willy-nilly, but why are the Government adamantine about not intervening when human rights issues affect British citizens? It was the same in Bermuda: the Government refused to say anything about same-sex marriage being banned, but the Supreme Court in Bermuda decided yesterday that the British Government were wrong and that same-sex marriage should be reintroduced.”
2018. June 13. Dozens of companies across Bermuda, both local and international (incorporated in Bermuda), have lined up in support of same-sex marriage and joined a list of “diversity friendly” businesses. A total of 58 businesses — from bars and luxury hotels to law firms, global banks and brokerages — have signed up, with several new additions since last week’s Supreme Court ruling in favour of gay marriage. Same-sex marriage activist Tony Brannon said: “People are asking to join the list. Right now, it seems to be catching on. We seem to be adding to the list every day.” Jay Correia, from the Swizzle Inn, which signed up on Monday, added: “We are proud to be on the right side of history.” Campaigners set up the list to underline how many island firms are in favour of marriage equality. The Reefs hotel joined the list yesterday, along with the Phoenix Stores group and department store Brown & Co. Real estate firm Kitson & Company, the Rosedon Hotel and its Huckleberry Restaurant joined the list on Monday. Mr Brannon explained some business owners had told him they supported the campaign for marriage equality but wanted to do so “quietly”. But he challenged them to stand up for what they believe in and add their names to the list. Mr Brannon highlighted cruise giants Carnival, which registers some of its fleet in Bermuda, as an example of a company doing the right thing. The shipping firm gave financial and public relations support to the plaintiffs involved in the court battle for same-sex marriage. Many international firms with a presence on the island, such as insurance company AIG, have supported LGBT rights elsewhere, but stayed silent on them in Bermuda. But Mr Brannon hoped they would have the courage to join the list in the wake of Chief Justice Ian Kawaley’s ruling last week and a Supreme Court judgment last May, which first paved the way for gay couples to marry on the island and on Bermuda-registered cruise ships around the world. Mr Brannon said: “I’m not going to stop until Premier David Burt knows many companies have joined the list.” Mr Justice Kawaley’s ruled that the new Domestic Partnership Act — which outlawed gay marriage and came into force on June 1 — was inconsistent with constitutional protections giving the right to freedom of conscience and outlawing discrimination on the basis of creed. Walton Brown, the home affairs minister, said the Government would appeal “subject to any legal advice we receive”. The Government has six weeks to decide whether to appeal before the Mr Justice Kawaley’s judgment takes effect. Mr Brannon said: “They are mad not to just accept this. They have lost two Supreme Court cases. There is the politics of it all but I hope at the end of the day what the Premier does is accept the legal advice.” Mr Brannon predicted some international companies might vote with their feet if the Government continued to try to reverse marriage equality in the face of a barrage of criticism in Bermuda and overseas.
2018. June 11. The Human Rights Commission said the Bermuda Government can cater for both the rights of the gay community and those with competing views in the church. The HRC gave its backing to the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse the ban on same-sex marriage, and offered to help Government address both sides of an argument that has divided Bermuda. On Wednesday, Chief Justice Ian Kawaley upheld a constitutional challenge to the Domestic Partnership Act, which was put in place by the Progressive Labour Party government after church groups campaigned against same-sex marriage. HRC chairwoman Tawana Tannock said: “It is our hope that any further action taken by the Government will be done so with a view to solidifying the rights and expectations confirmed in the judgment, while also addressing what some may view as competing religious rights. Both can be upheld, one does not have to negate the other, as we have seen modeled in other jurisdictions. This is not always a simple task, but it is a necessary one in which the HRC stands ready to provide the necessary advice and assistance to the Government and community stakeholders.” Ms Tannock said it has previously spoken about the importance of maintaining mutual respect while handling competing rights. She said: “The Human Rights Commission is pleased by the outcome of the recent court decision and judgment on same-sex marriage. We are equally as heartened to read the judgment Chief Justice Ian Kawaley in which he stressed the importance of the acknowledgement and protection for competing rights. This is often a passionate topic of discussion for the Office and Commissioners as we seek to maintain this approach to rights-based issues. To see our concerns elucidated so clearly by the Chief Justice was reassuring and it is our hope that members of the Government and public alike will read the judgment in full, as the issue of competing rights is one that must be approached with mutual respect for all parties involved.” Ms Tannock added: “The judgment is also significant in its confirmation of the necessity of the primacy of the Human Rights Act, which effectively seeks to establish, clarify and solidify rights that were not included in our Constitution, a document which is reflective of the period in which it was drafted, but not the Bermuda of today or tomorrow.” Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs, has said the Government will appeal the decision “subject to any legal advice we receive”.
2018. June 8. Bermuda could show how progressive it is on a world stage if it allowed a Supreme Court ruling in favour of marriage equality to stand, a human rights lawyer said yesterday. Venous Memari, managing director of civil rights group the Centre for Justice, said: “If left alone, the effect of this decision will be that Bermuda will be able to boast about having one of the most, if not the most, progressive laws in the world on marital equality. All couples, same sex and straight couples, are entitled to enter into a domestic partnership and enjoy the rights conferred by the Domestic Partnership Act or get married, if they so wish.” Ms Memari was speaking after Chief Justice Ian Kawaley reversed a same-sex marriage ban that had been in force for less than a week. The judgment was the latest twist in a long-running legal battle fought by campaigners for marriage equality. The Supreme Court ruled last May that a denial of marriage rights to gay couples was discrimination under the Human Rights Act. There have been 14 same-sex weddings on the island and six maritime weddings on Bermudian-registered ships since then. Parliament passed the Domestic Partnership Act last December to revoke marriage equality and offered civil unions instead. The law came into force at the start of this month. Gay Bermudians Rod Ferguson and Maryellen Jackson, along with the charity OutBermuda, challenged the legislation on constitutional grounds and won their case against the Attorney-General on Wednesday. Mr Justice Kawaley’s ruling has not yet taken effect because the Attorney-General was given a six-week stay to allow time to decide whether to appeal the decision. Critics of the earlier Supreme Court judgment suggested it was wrong for a lone judge to make a decision which appeared to go against the will of Parliament. Ms Memari said the case was about constitutional law and the judgment was timely, given the discussion about the Constitution as the island marked the 50th anniversary of universal adult suffrage and the 1968 Constitution Order. She explained: “The judgment makes it clear that Parliament’s power to legislate is limited to acting within the confines of the Constitution. In other words, in Bermuda, it is the Constitution that is supreme, not the Legislature.” Mr Justice Kawaley said in his written judgment that the legislative effect of a reversal of last year’s ruling on marriage equality was “wholly or mainly about a supposedly secular Parliament privileging majority beliefs about how marriage should be legally defined over minority beliefs”. Ms Memari said: “The Chief Justice was guided by Commonwealth authorities on the secularist approach to governance, which our Constitution requires. Mr Justice Kawaley said in his written ruling that ‘Parliament may not validly promulgate laws which are motivated by a religious purpose’. He goes on to explain the broader principle that the ‘laws of a secular state may not validly impose the beliefs of religious majorities on minorities’.” Mark Pettingill, Mr Ferguson’s lawyer, agreed it was important for people to understand that Bermuda was a constitutional democracy. He said: “That is the guiding principle and that is above what may be the will of Parliament.”
2018. June 8. People who campaigned against marriage equality will come to feel “shame and regret” in the future, former Attorney-General Mark Pettingill predicted yesterday. Mr Pettingill, who represented gay Bermudian Rod Ferguson in a successful Supreme Court bid to have the ban on same-sex marriage reversed, told The Royal Gazette: “Twenty years from now, some people’s children are going to, at dinner, say: ‘how could you?’ “It’s going to be, in years to come, for some of those people, a position of shame and regret, like it is with many people in our society on the race issue. They are ashamed of what they didn’t do. It’s the old classic, isn’t it? Bad things happen because good people stand by and do nothing. History is made by people having the courage to bring about change and we have, in many instances, lacked that courage.” Mr Pettingill was speaking after the island’s top judge, Chief Justice Ian Kawaley, upheld a constitutional challenge to the new Domestic Partnership Act on Wednesday. Mr Justice Kawaley declared that sections of the Act designed to revoke the right to same-sex marriage were invalid. He made the ruling after the Act was challenged by Mr Ferguson, Maryellen Jackson and gay rights charity OutBermuda. The case was brought against Attorney-General Kathy Lynn Simmons. Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs, said the Government would appeal “subject to any legal advice we receive” just after the judgment was made. Mr Pettingill asked the Government not to go down the expensive appeal route and instead to draw a line under the debate. He said: “The judgment is so legally sound, that it would be folly for the Government to launch an appeal. It should be over. If common sense prevails, it should be.” He added the judgment, which ruled that the DPA went against a constitutional right to freedom of conscience and a provision against discrimination on the basis of creed, as “one for the ages”. Mr Pettingill said the decision reflected Bermuda’s “excellent judicial process” and a “democratic system that is working very well”. He added he was pleased that Mr Justice Kawaley picked up on a comparison he made to the days of racial segregation when black people were allowed to enter theatres but had to sit in different seats to white people. Mr Pettingill said: “This was always the crux of my case. What the Crown tried to argue was ‘but you still have ... all of the same legal rights, what are you complaining about? The argument back then was: ‘you still get to see the movie, we just don’t want you sitting in the same place’. This was ‘you still get to have a legal relationship that the state is calling a domestic partnership but you can’t have marriage, even though other people can’. It’s a perfectly analogous situation.” Mr Pettingill praised Mr Ferguson for his courage as the face of the marriage equality campaign and said he took personal pride in the case, which he argued for the plaintiffs alongside lawyers Rod Attride-Stirling and Ronald Myers. He added: “You want, as a lawyer, to have a legacy to what you do. You want to have done something really meaningful. It’s not just about winning cases — we all want to do that and earn a good living. It’s the ability to do something that means something in such a tremendous way on a human rights issue. It’s something your kids can be proud of. That is, kind of, what I’m most pleased about because my youngest children — not just the older ones, but the younger ones, aged 8 and 6 — get it.” Mr Pettingill said the DPA was a compromise Bill from the Progressive Labour Party administration drawn up because so much of its support base opposed marriage equality. He criticized the three independent senators who backed it — Joan Dillas-Wright, James Jardine and Michelle Simmons. Mr Pettingill said: “These are the people who are supposed to be sitting in the middle, looking at things sensibly and not guided by any kind of political persuasion. So for them — en masse, as they did — to come out and say ‘oh, Bermuda is not there, we are not ready for this’, was appalling. If I had been the Governor, they would have been fired, just for even that approach to it. I thought that was shameful from the independents.”
2018. June 7. Gay couples won the right to marry yesterday for the second time in little more than a year, but the Government said it would appeal the Supreme Court decision to reverse the ban on same-sex marriage. Chief Justice Ian Kawaley upheld a constitutional challenge against the Domestic Partnership Act, delivering a judgment that declared invalid the parts of the legislation which revoked marriage equality. His ruling was greeted with a round of applause from a packed public gallery and joyful celebrations outside the courtroom. Several hours later, Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs, announced the judgment would be appealed “subject to any legal advice that we receive”. Mr Justice Kawaley’s ruling does not take immediate effect because he agreed to an application by Solicitor-General Melvin Douglas, representing the Attorney-General, for a six-week stay to allow the Government to decide whether to appeal. During that period, gay couples will only be able to apply to enter into domestic partnerships. Mr Brown said: “We are pleased that the Chief Justice has stayed the decision until an appeal can be submitted.” Mr Justice Kawaley said in his ruling that the sections of the Act that revoked the right to same-sex marriage were invalid because they favored one set of beliefs about marriage over another and were inconsistent with provisions in the Constitution that gave the right to freedom of conscience and creed. After the hearing, gay Bermudians Rod Ferguson and Maryellen Jackson, who launched the civil proceedings, along with charity OutBermuda, said they were delighted with the outcome. Mr Ferguson said: “Obviously the stay is disappointing, but the win is amazing. The feeling is incredible. I’m so excited. This is a win for equality, for Bermuda, for all of us.” Ms Jackson added: “It is amazing to be a part of it and everyone wins.” Mark Pettingill, lawyer for Mr Ferguson, said: “We’re thrilled. I can’t say there’s any other way to put it. This is justice prevailed. We fought so long so it would prevail and the right thing has been done.” He added that he was optimistic the matter would not return to the courts, despite Mr Brown’s statement. Mr Pettingill said: “I remain hopeful common sense will prevail after they take advice as the minister indicated they would do before appealing.” Rod Attride-Stirling, who represented Ms Jackson and OutBermuda, said: “Human rights mean rights for all humans and there is no question that the decision has been correctly decided. As for the appeal, it will be a short wait, but I think that we will be vindicated.” In his written judgment, the Chief Justice said the complainants were not seeking the right to compel people of opposing beliefs to celebrate or enter into same-sex marriage. “They merely seek to enforce the rights of those who share their beliefs to freely manifest them in practice,” he said. "Persons who passionately believe that same-sex marriages should not take place for religious or cultural reasons are entitled to have those beliefs respected and protected by law. But, in return for the law protecting their own beliefs, they cannot require the law to deprive persons who believe in same-sex marriage of respect and legal protection for their opposing beliefs.” The DPA was passed by Parliament in December to reverse a Supreme Court ruling from May last year which enabled gay couples to tie the knot. The new legislation came into force on Friday, revoking the right of gay couples to marry and offering them — and heterosexual couples — legally recognized civil unions. The Chief Justice found the DPA was inconsistent with provisions in the Constitution giving the right to freedom of conscience and outlawing discrimination on the basis of creed. He quoted an analogy he said was put forward “evocatively” by Mr Pettingill during last month’s hearing on the case. Mr Pettingill argued that same-sex couples being allowed to participate in domestic partnerships but not marriages was akin to people of colour in Bermuda being permitted to enter the theatre but required to sit in special seats. It wasn’t an answer, Mr Pettingill said, for the Crown to say being let into the theatre meant no discrimination was taking place. “No reasonable court, properly directing itself, could possibly find that providing differing types of legal recognition for same-sex and heterosexual couples was not differential treatment in general terms,” said Mr Justice Kawaley. Mr Attride-Stirling asked the court to consider the advantages the DPA conferred on those who believed in traditional marriage. Mr Justice Kawaley agreed that those advantages “took the form of the state solely recognizing a form of marriage which that clearly identified group of believers adhered to…this group was clearly preferred on grounds which were wholly or mainly attributable to their beliefs.” He said his decision “vindicates the principle that Parliament cannot impose the religious preferences of any one group on the society as a whole through legislation of general application”. The Chief Justice added: “The present case was aggravated by the fact that the DPA took away legal rights which had only recently been recognized by the courts ...” The passing of the DPA made Bermuda unique as the only country in the world to have allowed gay marriage and then revoked that right. It prompted a firestorm of criticism here and abroad, leading to Mr Ferguson’s decision to sue the Attorney-General. Global news media reported on yesterday’s decision, with The Independent, BuzzFeed, Metro Weekly, Travel Weekly and the Daily Beast among the outlets publishing stories.
2018. June 1. A new law to ban same-sex marriage but give gay and straight couples the ability to enter into civil unions comes into effect today. The controversial Domestic Partnership Act 2018 becomes law as marriage-equality campaigners await a ruling from the Supreme Court on their attempt to have part of the legislation struck out on constitutional grounds. The DPA was approved by Parliament in December, sparking criticism from human rights activists and British MPs, including Prime Minister Theresa May. John Rankin, the Governor, gave the legislation Royal Assent on February 7. The Act reversed a Supreme Court ruling in May last year that paved the way for gay couples to get married in Bermuda and on ships registered to the island. There were ten same-sex marriages on the island up to the middle of February, plus four at sea on Bermuda-flagged ships. Banns were also posted for two more maritime marriages. The latest civil proceedings in Supreme Court were brought against Attorney- General Kathy Lynn Simmons by gay Bermudians Rod Ferguson and Maryellen Jackson and the charity OutBermuda. The plaintiffs claimed the part of the Act that reaffirmed that a marriage is void unless the parties are male and female was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Ian Kawaley reserved judgment in the case until a later date. Same-sex couples had until yesterday to marry. Couples who want to apply for a domestic partnership can contact the Registry-General on 297-7739 or 298-7199.
2018. May 25. A court bid to ensure gay people in Bermuda do not lose the right to marry was a “big win” whatever the outcome of the case, according to the leaders of an LGBTQ charity. Adrian Hartnett-Beasley and Zakiya Lord, deputy chairpersons of OutBermuda, told The Royal Gazette that no matter what the Chief Justice rules on the constitutional challenge heard in the Supreme Court last week, the proceedings were a success. There are some days where I think if you live a life as a gay person in Bermuda, it’s an act of bravery every day,” Mr Hartnett-Beasley said. "This is a win for all the young LGBTQ kids that are out there that maybe haven’t even identified their sexuality. They are looking at us as the generation above them. We are showing up for them, even if we don’t know them. We are showing up for them with our voices, with our visibility and with our money.” Ms Lord said the civil proceedings sent a clear message to young LGBTQ people and their allies in Bermuda to “keep showing up for themselves, keep showing up for each other”. She said: “Our goal is to keep showing up for the LGBT community. They can decide what that looks like tomorrow, but this is what it looks like today.” The civil hearing before Chief Justice Ian Kawaley centered on two lawsuits filed against the Attorney-General. The first was brought by Rod Ferguson, a gay Bermudian who claimed he had been subjected to “inhuman or degrading treatment” with the passing of the Domestic Partnership Act, which will introduce civil unions for all and outlaw gay weddings when it comes into force on June 1. OutBermuda then filed a separate suit, along with gay Bermudian Maryellen Jackson, which echoed Mr Ferguson’s claim that the legislation was unconstitutional. The two cases were joined to be dealt with at the same four-day hearing, where the legal arguments focused largely on how to define “creed” and “freedom of conscience” — both protected rights under the Constitution. Lauran Sadler-Best, for the Attorney-General, said the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a “common creed”. But OutBermuda said its submissions to the court did just that. The submissions contained nine affidavits from various individuals, including the first gay couple to marry here, representatives from two churches, and an executive from Carnival Cruise Line, which has partially funded the litigation. Mr Hartnett-Beasley said the intention was to add “more visible faces and stories before the courts so they can understand LGBT Bermudians and their allies”. He added: “Whether it’s a win or lose for the law, it’s a big win for our community, no question. I am really proud of the work that OutBermuda has been doing What we brought to the table were a further spectrum of views on why this is unconstitutional and that played out in the numerous affidavits we put in, showing the support from a cross-section of Bermuda.” Ms Jackson, 50, who is single and has a 15-year-old daughter, said she had no regrets about stepping forward to put her name on one of the lawsuits and had encountered “no backlash” from the community. “I didn’t think the whole thing was fair and [I thought] that something should be done,” she said. “The opportunity came and I was like, maybe I am the person I have been waiting for to step forward. And [I should] do it for myself, recognizing that everyone benefits. I can’t complain about a right being taken from me, if I don’t exercise my right to protect it.” Mr Ferguson, 39, who is also single, said: “It’s been a really positive experience in the sense that it’s connected me more with the LGBT community.” He said he left the island for college at a time when it was not safe to be openly gay in Bermuda. “People have reached out to me over Facebook, mostly LGBT members of the community of Bermuda, who I had no way of connecting with when I was here because none of us were out. To see and meet people who are part of the community, who came in to attend the hearing — that was a positive experience for me.” Mr Ferguson said he had “no sense” of what the outcome of the case would be, but added: “I do trust that the Chief Justice was doing a really good job and was thorough in his investigations and exploration of these principles.” The Supreme Court ruled in favour of gay couple Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche last year after they sued the Registrar-General for refusing to post their wedding banns. The decision paved the way for other gay couples to wed here, but eight months later Parliament passed the DPA. Mr Ferguson, OutBermuda and Ms Jackson are asking the court to declare void the parts of the Act which revoke the right to same-sex marriage. Mr Pettingill said the mantra of the current case was: “You have the right to love and happiness.” He added: “That is your right within your conscience and your creed. You have the right to be a gay person and to be married to a person of the same-sex. The real crux is that this became an existing right after Godwin and was then taken away by the state, who are effectively telling you how to express your love and happiness and that you can’t do it this way, you have to do it this way.” Mr Justice Kawaley reserved judgment to a later date.
2018. May 25. Campaign group OutBermuda released the following statement about the same-sex Supreme Court hearing this week: “This week, we made history for all Bermudians who join us in support of fairness and equality. Through us, the Supreme Court listened respectfully to Bermuda’s LGBT people, and learnt about our lives, our families, our children, and our belief that Bermuda’s future is welcoming and embracing. They heard our allies’ voices too, recognizing that Bermuda’s youth are looking at us, knowing that there are people in Bermuda that will visibly, vocally, spiritually and economically support them. We are incredibly proud of the work that has been accomplished this week. Our lawsuit has one aim. We seek to revoke the sections of the recently enacted Domestic Partnership Act that remove full marriage rights for same-sex couples. As our lives testify, we see these provisions as unfair, unlawful and harmful to many families. We support domestic partner rights for all Bermudians to choose, but not at the expense of denying marriage to some. We believe the revocation of same-sex marriage to be not only unjust but regressive and unconstitutional. Today we express heartfelt thanks to Maryellen Jackson, Sylvia Hayward Harris and Dr. Gordon Campbell who joined us with our suit, as we united our case with Rod Ferguson. We also wish sincerely thank those who submitted affidavits on our behalf to advocate on behalf of Bermuda families, leaders in faith and business, and legal authorities who advocate for equality. These include Chai T, Trustees of Wesley Methodist Church, Julia and Judith Aidoo-Saltus, Douglas NeJaime and Roger Frizzell, on behalf of Carnival Corporation." NOTE: see outbermuda.com to read copies of the individual affidavits in Supreme Court this week.] We especially thank our attorney, Rod S. Attride-Stirling and his team at ASW Law Limited, for representing us so expertly in the courtroom this week.”
OutBermuda Promotes and supports the wellbeing, health, dignity, security, safety and protection of the LGBTQ community in Bermuda by providing educational resources on issues of diversity, inclusiveness, awareness and acceptance regarding LGBTQ people. It seeks generally to advance human rights, conflict resolution and the promotion of equality and diversity relating to the LGBTQ community in Bermuda. A registered charity (#973), which promotes and supports the wellbeing, health, dignity, security, safety and protection of the LGBTQ community in Bermuda.
2018. May 24. Maryellen Jackson cried tears of joy in 2017 when she learnt that one day she could marry her “Miss Right” after years of discrimination. But by the end of the year, her hopes were dashed when the Government backtracked on same-sex marriage. Ms Jackson said she was shocked when the Domestic Partnership Act, which abolished the right for gay people to marry just seven months after it had been granted by the Supreme Court, was passed by Parliament. Now the athlete and teacher has filed a heartfelt affirmation with the Supreme Court to explain why she joined forces with fellow gay Bermudian Rod Ferguson and campaign group OutBermuda to challenge the Attorney-General over the DPA in a case being heard this week. Ms Jackson highlighted the difficulty of life as a young lesbian in an island plagued by homophobia. She said a domestic partnership would only be a “cheap imitation” of marriage. She wrote: “I identified as lesbian in 1994, while in my twenties. When I did, I came to understand that this aspect of who I was is the part of me that had been missing as a young adult. I finally felt a sense of wholeness. I was complete. But this feeling lasted only until I understood that living in a society that does not accept differences was not going to make my coming out easy.” But she said: “Determined to live life on my own terms, I began dating. When you live in a country that deems your behavior an abomination and ‘of the devil’, dating presents its own challenges. You are forced to live a double life. The first life is the public face: introducing my partner as my ‘friend’ to some and ‘girlfriend’ to others. The second life is the private face — my partner was my girlfriend, my partner.” Ms Jackson added: “This double life created such a conflict within me and for my relationship and led to a great deal of stress for me. I found it very unsettling that the very same people who protested, ‘I don’t care what they do behind closed doors’, were the people who most complained about what we did behind closed doors.” Ms Jackson was delighted with the Supreme Court judgment last May which paved the way for same-sex marriage. She wrote: “In 2017, my dream came true. To say that I was ecstatic would have been an understatement. I cried tears of joy as I realised I now had the opportunity to have a life I wanted to live: an open, fully accepted, legally binding relationship with the woman I could choose as my wife.” But she said: “That dream was dashed when the Government took steps to abolish the right for gays and lesbians to marry and to establish the Domestic Partnership Act. I grew up in Bermuda, where marriage is the norm. Like so many Bermudians, I aspired to be married one day. I cherish the concept of monogamous marriage and this forms an important part of my belief system.” Ms Jackson added: “Although my beliefs are not founded on any particular religious position, they are founded on my cultural beliefs and my deeply held personal beliefs, including in particular my belief in the institution of marriage. I look forward to one day being married, and marriage has deep meaning to me. For me, the possibility of meeting Miss Right, and getting married if and when we choose, is fundamentally important. The Domestic Partnership Act’s purported taking away of my right to marry hinders my strongly held beliefs and hinders my freedom of conscience. Domestic partnerships do not form part of my belief system. I don’t want to have a domestic partner. If a domestic partner is a partner that you live with but are not married to then I’ve already had a domestic partner. Adding some legal protections to that is also not sufficient. It is like telling me to accept the legal benefits of being a common-law wife. I don’t want just some legal benefits, I want marriage. I — we — deserve true equality. A domestic partnership holds no cultural or spiritual significance to me, or to anyone else I know. It is, for me and others who think like me, a cheap imitation of marriage. In fact, domestic partnerships are now just a symbol of the Government’s decision to revoke same-sex marriage. They simply remind the LGBTQ community that the Government does not see us as equal and has returned us to being second-class citizens. I don’t want to be separate but equal. I just want to be equal.” Ms Jackson said the DPA infringed her constitutional rights to freedom from discrimination. She added: “At present I have a right to be married, but I am not currently in a relationship and am not presently ready to be married. But I have that right. The Domestic Partnership Act, when it comes into effect, will take away this crystallized right. As a born and bred Bermudian, I deserve the right to marry the woman of my choice.”
2018. May 23. Legislation to axe same-sex marriage robbed churches of the ability to make their own decisions on the issue, the Supreme Court heard yesterday. Gordon Campbell, on behalf of the trustees of the Wesley Methodist Church, said in an affidavit that the Domestic Partnership Act would tie the hands of all churches to decide whether to celebrate gay marriages or not. Dr Campbell added: “Our congregation will lose the right to choose for itself. We will have no choice but to conform to the beliefs of churches and individuals who, for their own religious reasons, oppose same-sex marriage (for whose benefit the ban was enacted). This, we argue, hinders our freedom of conscience and of religion and is unconstitutional.” The affidavit said all churches should be able to choose whether to carry out same-sex marriages. Dr Campbell said: “We deeply respect the churches and groups with whom we disagree on this issue. He added: “We believe that we have more in common with the churches who disagree with us on this issue, than have things that divide us. We believe that we and they all want to act in the way which we believe is right and consistent with our own religious views.” The affidavit was one of several presented to the Supreme Court as it heard arguments over the legality of the DPA. Rod Attride-Stirling, representing gay rights organisation OutBermuda and gay Bermudian MaryEllen Jackson, argued that the Domestic Partnership Act is unconstitutional because it has a religious purpose. Mr Attride-Stirling also argued that the DPA disadvantaged organisations who believed in same-sex marriage. Ms Jackson, in a separate affidavit, said being gay in Bermuda had forced her to live a double life. She added that she had grown up cherishing the institution of marriage and was delighted when a court ruled in favour of same-sex marriage. Ms Jackson said: “I look forward to one day being married. Marriage has a deep meaning to me.” She felt that domestic partnership was a “cheap imitation” of marriage and a symbol of the Government’s decision to revoke same-sex marriage rights. Ms Jackson said: “I don’t want to be separate but equal. I want to be equal.” Julia Saltus, a Bermudian lawyer, was also delighted by the ruling allowing same-sex marriage and later married her now-wife Judith. Ms Saltus said the marriage gave her relationship a higher level of recognition and that there was a privilege inherent in the state of matrimony. Sylvia Hayward-Harris, Bermudian pastor of the Vision Church of Atlanta, said the DPA would interfere with her ability to conduct same-sex marriages. She added that the ability to conduct gay marriages was an important part of her religious beliefs. The court also heard evidence from a brief made by the American Psychological Association which said the denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples was “detrimental to their well-being”. Mr Attride-Stirling also read an affidavit from cruise line Carnival, which has ships registered on the island, which said the company had been encouraged to leave Bermuda as a result of the DPA. He said: “Carnival’s position is they didn’t wish to turn and run and abandon the gay community in Bermuda, so instead of doing that they decided to fight to change the law.” Mr Attride-Stirling pointed out that the DPA stemmed from a Private Members’ Bill put forward by Wayne Furbert, a Progressive Labour Party MP who wanted to block same-sex marriage. The lawyer quoted an interview with Mr Furbert on his Bill. Mr Furbert said then: “I must admit this comes from a religious perspective.” Mr Attride-Stirling argued the Government had to give a secular justification for the revocation of same-sex marriage but had not done so. He said: “There was one single reason for all of this. That was to satisfy the religious lobby.” The Supreme Court ruled in favour of gay couple Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche last year when they took legal action against the Registrar-General in the wake of a refusal to post their wedding banns. The ruling opened the way for other same-sex couples to marry on the island. But Parliament passed the DPA, which was created to replace same-sex marriages with partnership arrangements open to both gay and straight couples, last December. Rod Ferguson, represented by Mark Pettingill, launched a legal action against the Attorney-General in February. His aim is to get the court to declare the legislation void on the grounds it is in breach of fundamental constitutional rights. OutBermuda and Ms Jackson launched a similar lawsuit and the Supreme Court decided to hear both cases together. Dr Campbell and Ms Hayward-Harris were added as parties to the case this week.
2018. May 22. A law to give limited partnership rights to same-sex couples should be struck down because it has a religious purpose, a lawyer said today. Rod Attride-Stirling told the Supreme Court the Domestic Partnership Act, which will block same-sex marriage from the start of next month, was unconstitutional. Mr Attride-Stirling said: “The law is quite clear that while Parliament can bring any legislation they want to bring, if they bring legislation for a religious purpose, the legislation fails.” Mr Attride-Stirling said the legislation stemmed from a Bill presented by Wayne Furbert intended to block same-sex marriage for “entirely and unquestionably” religious purposes. He added that Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs, had said that the DPA was put forward to stop Mr Furbert’s Bill. Both Bills included the revocation of same-sex marriage. Mr Attride-Stirling said: “It becomes impossible to untie the religious purpose of the Furbert Bill from the revocation purposes of the DPA.” He also argued there were no secular reasons given to revoke the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Mr Attride-Stirling said: “In Bermuda, we are changing the secular definition of marriage to impose a religious one. They have to have a rational and reasonable justification for bringing it. In this case, there is no justification.” Mr Attride-Stirling argued that by legislating marriage based on one religious definition, it disadvantaged groups with different religious views. He added that even if the motivation for bringing the Bill was political in nature, its purpose remained religious. “That doesn’t take away from the religious purpose. Even if Mr Brown didn’t himself have a religious purpose, that legislation had a religious purpose. We are not here to attack Mr Brown; we are here to attack the legislation.” The comments came as the court heard a lawsuit brought by gay Bermudian Rod Ferguson against the Attorney-General, Kathy Lynn Simmons. Mr Attride-Stirling is representing interested parties. Mark Pettingill, representing Mr Ferguson, said the legislation was discriminatory and designed to remove a right from gay people in Bermuda. Mr Pettingill told the Supreme Court: “We have come so far down the road. We are not talking about walking a step forward. We are talking about going back a step. A big step. Once a right is given, it shouldn’t be taken away. That’s the crux of this.” Mr Pettingill argued the legislation goes against the constitution’s protection of “freedom of conscience”. He said the DPA was intended to satisfy people on both sides of the same-sex marriage argument, but it created a subclass of people instead. Mr Pettingill also disputed the suggestion that any discrimination caused by the act would be trivial. He compared the fight for equal rights to marriage to past civil rights campaigns. He said: “You have to sit in the back of the bus, but you still get to go on the bus. You have to sit up stairs in the movie theatre, but you still get to see the movie. It’s a thin point, but it’s still discrimination.” The Supreme Court ruled in favour of gay couple Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche last year when they took legal action against the Registrar-General in the wake of a refusal to post their wedding banns. The ruling opened the way for other same-sex couples to marry on the island. But Parliament passed the DPA, which was created to replace same-sex marriages with partnership arrangements open to both gay and straight couples, last December. Mr Fergusson launched his case against the Attorney-General in February. His aim is to get the court to declare the legislation void on the grounds it is in breach of fundamental rights set out in the Constitution.
2018. May 21. A law to give limited partnership rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, a lawyer said today. Mark Pettingill, representing gay Bermudian Rod Ferguson, said the Domestic Partnership Act, which will replace full marriage rights at the start of next month, was discrimination and designed to remove a right from gay people in Bermuda. Mr Pettingill told the Supreme Court: “We have come so far down the road. We are not talking about walking a step forward. “We are talking about going back a step. A big step.” Mr Pettingill said the DPA was intended to placate people on both sides of the same-sex marriage argument, but it created a subclass of people instead. He also disputed the suggestion that any discrimination caused by the act would be trivial. Mr Pettingill compared the fight for equal rights to marriage to past civil rights campaigns. Mr Pettingill said: “You have to sit in the back of the bus, but you still get to go on the bus. You have to sit up stairs in the movie theatre, but you still get to see the movie. It’s a thin point, but it’s still discrimination.” Last year the Supreme Court ruled in favour of gay couple Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche, who took legal action against the Registrar-General in the wake of a refusal to post their wedding banns. The ruling opened the way for other same-sex couples to marry on the island. But Parliament passed the DPA, which was created to replace same-sex marriages with partnership arrangements open to both gay and straight couples, last December. The DPA was later given Royal Assent by John Rankin, the Governor. Mr Fergusson launched his case against Attorney-General Kathy Lynn Simmons in February. His aim is to get the court to declare the legislation void on the grounds it is in breach of fundamental rights set out in the Constitution.
2018. May 15. Chief Justice Ian Kawaley made the wrong decision in the landmark Bermuda Bred case which gave same-sex partners the same rights to live and work on the island, the Court of Appeal has said in a written judgment. The Appeals Panel found that the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act had priority over the Human Rights Act. Appeal Judge Geoffrey Bell said: “If it had been suggested to Parliament in 1981 that the effect of the Human Rights Act was to take precedence over the regulation of employment by the minister under the BIPA, the answer would have been swift and strong to say that was not Parliament’s intention.” He added the issue was now only one of “academic interest” due to the passing of the Bermuda Immigration (No 2) Act last year, which spelled out the primacy of the BIPA. The comments came as the Court of Appeal overturned a separate Supreme Court ruling, which was based in part on the Bermuda Bred case. In the Bermuda Bred case, Mr Justice Kawaley ruled that same-sex partners of Bermudians have the same right to live and work in Bermuda as spouses of Bermudians. The ruling was based on the view that the Human Rights Act had primacy over immigration law. The Bermuda Bred case was quoted in the later Godwin-DeRoche case which paved the for the introduction of same-sex marriage in Bermuda. In the present case, Marco and Paula Tavares, long-term Bermuda residents, had applied for indefinite permission to work in Bermuda but were refused. Ms Tavares is a British Overseas Territories citizen born in Bermuda and Mr Tavares her husband. Puisne Judge Stephen Hellman earlier found the minister had unlawfully discriminated against Ms Tavares by treating her less favorably than someone whose parents had Bermudian status. The Minister of Home Affairs, the Governor and the Attorney-General’s Chambers argued the island’s immigration legislation has primacy over the Human Rights Act — contrary to the ruling in the Bermuda Bred case. All three members of the panel backed the appeal. They found in a judgment handed down on April 20 that the Chief Justice had erred in the Bermuda Bred ruling Mr Justice Bell said: “The HRA does not operate so as to render the provisions of the BIPA subject to the discrimination provisions of the HRA. To hold otherwise would, in my view, be to ignore the fact that the Constitution expressly recognized the need to discriminate against persons who do not belong to Bermuda in the regulation of employment.” Fellow appeals judge Sir Christopher Clarke supported Mr Justice Bell’s ruling and said immigration legislation was “inherently discriminatory”. He said: “If the regulation of engagement in gainful occupation of non-Bermudians is to be regarded as the provision of a service by the ministry, I find it difficult to see why the regulation of entry into, and of stay and residence within, Bermuda are not also the provision of such a service. By this logic it would be unlawful to refuse to allow a non-Bermudian with no links whatever with Bermuda to enter, remain and work in Bermuda. To do so would be direct discrimination. The UK citizen would be at liberty to come, reside, and work in Bermuda without restriction, in company with the citizens of any other state.” Sir Scott Baker added he was unable to avoid the conclusion that the Supreme Court had been incorrect in its decision. He said: “The minister, in exercising his powers through an immigration officer under section 60 of the BIPA, is quite simply not supplying goods, facilities or services.”
2018. April 12. The chief executive of the island’s tourism authority said he would not have moved back to Bermuda unless he was sure he and his same-sex partner would be welcomed. Kevin Dallas also defended Bermuda’s track record on human rights and pointed out that the island was well ahead of other island jurisdictions in rights for LGBT people. Mr Dallas said: “As a gay Bermudian, I feel pretty lucky to have been born here.” He added: “I would not have moved back to Bermuda if I was not convinced it was a welcoming place where we can openly be ourselves. For that matter, I would not have moved back if Bermuda did not have immigration rights for my same-sex partner. Some of the stories of what it’s like to be gay in Bermuda in The Advocate and on The Huffington Post are by people who haven’t lived in Bermuda for 30 or 40 years. I think we all have horror stories of what the world was like 30 or 40 years ago. Bermuda today is not the Bermuda I grew up in. It may not have been a place I wanted to live.” Mr Dallas, the chief executive of the Bermuda Tourism Authority, was speaking in an interview with tourism organisation Gay Star Travel. He said he was disappointed by last December’s reversal of same-sex marriage in Bermuda — but that the Domestic Partnership Act that replaced marriage did give more rights to same-sex couples. Mr Dallas added: “However, I would say that it was personally complicated for me, because my partner and I were civil-unioned in the UK. For us, the Domestic Partnership Act actually means new rights we didn’t have before. So on the one hand, I was personally disappointed that something was taken away. On the other, pragmatically, this law leaves my partner and I in a better place.” Mr Dallas argued that despite the negative international headlines sparked by the axing of same-sex marriage, Bermuda remained a tolerant place. “As a gay Bermudian, I feel pretty lucky to have been born here and not the many other places where LGBT travelers go looking for a Bermuda-like experience. Despite this more recent setback, Bermuda’s track record on advancing LGBT rights in the last 20 years is pretty good. We won same-sex partner immigration rights, we won same-sex partner adoption rights. Gays and lesbians can serve in our military. We have no ban on transsexuals like President [Donald] Trump is trying to force in the US and the Domestic Partnership Act gives us civil rights of marriage. It’s short of what we want. However, if you take the emotion out of it, and you compare Bermuda to most other island nations, Bermuda actually has a pretty progressive track record.” Mr Dallas also dismissed calls for LGBT tourists to boycott the island in the wake of Parliament’s decision to replace same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships. He said: “Personally, in my career as an out professional in the US and more recently in London, I’ve found nothing makes a bigger difference to win hearts and minds than being present and visible. To my mind, the idea that LGBT people and supporters of equality would stay away from Bermuda and stay out of the debate would be highly counter-intuitive to what people are trying to achieve.”
2018. April 4. A second lawsuit has been launched against new legislation which revokes the right of gay couples to marry in Bermuda. Gay Bermudian Maryellen Jackson and charity OutBermuda have filed civil proceedings in the Supreme Court against the Attorney-General, claiming the Domestic Partnership Act is unconstitutional. The legal bid is backed by cruise company Carnival Corporation, which has been offering gay weddings on its Bermudian-registered ships since a May 2017 Supreme Court ruling which, in effect, legalized same-sex marriage. Carnival said yesterday: “We support marriage equality and we have been actively engaged in supporting efforts by OutBermuda — a registered charity that promotes and supports the well-being, health, dignity, security, safety and protection of the LGBTQ community in Bermuda — to legally challenge the action to again allow same-sex marriages on the island.” It added: “Our engagement includes providing OutBermuda with financial, civic and public relations support, as well as involvement by our company. We will also file an affidavit supporting the legal action submitted by OutBermuda and Ms Jackson. We are sensitive as to why some travelers may consider avoiding Bermuda while this ban is in place. While we always abide by the laws of the countries we sail to and from, we believe travel and tourism brings people and cultures together in powerful ways. As a result, we believe it is important to stand by the LGBTQ community in Bermuda and its many allies to oppose any actions that restrict travel and tourism.” The writ is the second to be filed against Attorney-General Kathy Lynn Simmons regarding the Domestic Protection Act, which was passed by Parliament in December and given assent by John Rankin, the Governor, in February. Comedian Rod Ferguson issued the first legal challenge, claiming that the legislation was inconsistent with his fundamental rights as set out in the Constitution and subjected him to “inhuman or degrading treatment”. His case is due to be heard by the Chief Justice next month. OutBermuda and Ms Jackson, represented by lawyer Rod Attride- Stirling, will ask for their case to be joined with his so they can be heard together. They claim that Section 53 of the new Act, which says a marriage is void unless the parties are male and female, regardless of the Human Rights Act and the May 2017 judgment, contravenes the Constitution and discriminates against Ms Jackson and others and their right to freedom of conscience. The originating summons states that Ms Jackson is a lesbian Bermudian who opposes the revocation of same-sex marriage. “She is seeking a declaration that the provisions of the Domestic Partnership Act that revoke same-sex marriage violate her constitutional rights,” the writ says. OutBermuda said in a statement: “While marriage equality is just one issue facing the LGBTQ+ community, OutBermuda believes it is well positioned to provide a legal voice on a topic that has recently been handled like a political football in Bermuda. Together, OutBermuda and Ms Jackson strongly oppose any measure to revoke the right to marry by the Bermuda Government and believe that the ruling originally handed down by the Supreme Court of Bermuda in May 2017 permitting same-sex marriage is good law. OutBermuda recognizes it is far from alone on this issue and has strong support and allies, including Carnival Corporation, one of several cruise companies that sail to Bermuda. OutBermuda is proud to work with Carnival Corporation, which includes cruise line brands such as Cunard, P&O Cruises and Princess Cruises, as the company has a history of commitment to equality, inclusion and diversity.” The charity and Carnival have enlisted the services of Bob Witeck, head of the Washington-based gay and lesbian-focused communications group Witeck Communications. American news network CNBC reported on the lawsuit and Carnival’s involvement yesterday, describing the cruise firm as “taking a stand in the civil rights struggle in Bermuda”. Six of Carnival Corporation’s nine cruise line brands will call upon Bermuda this year, with a total of 59 stops scheduled. According to Carnival, its brands represent less than 15 percent of the cruise calls scheduled for Bermuda in 2018.
2018. April 3. LGBT rights charity OutBermuda and plaintiff Maryellen Jackson are preparing a legal challenge against the Bermuda Government to prove that its Domestic Partnership Act 2017 contravenes the constitution. The complainants claim that Section 53 of the Act and all other provisions in the Act that give effect to revoking or voiding same-sex marriage are in contravention. They have submitted an Originating Summons to the Supreme Court of Bermuda for that court to issue an order. They are preparing evidence for submission this week as well as an application to join their case to the Ferguson v Attorney General case so both can be heard together. Gay Bermudian Rod Ferguson launched a legal challenge in February against the Attorney-General for revoking his right to marry his partner in Bermuda and subjecting him to “inhuman or degrading treatment” OutBermuda and Maryellen Jackson are represented by Rod Attride-Stirling of ASW Law Limited. OutBermuda said it believes it is well positioned to provide a legal voice on a topic that has recently been handled like a “political football” in Bermuda. A spokesman for OutBermuda said: “Together, OutBermuda and Ms Jackson strongly oppose any measure to revoke the right to marry by the Bermuda Government and believe that the ruling originally handed down by the Supreme Court of Bermuda in May 2017 permitting same-sex marriage is good law. “OutBermuda, who along with Ms Jackson will be represented by Rod Attride Stirling of ASW Law, said it has strong support and allies including Carnival Corporation, a cruise company that sails to Bermuda. OutBermuda is proud to work with Carnival Corporation, which includes cruise line brands such as Cunard, P&O Cruises and Princess Cruises, as the company has a long history of commitment to equality, inclusion and diversity. Among its many ongoing efforts, the corporation and its nine cruise line brands have been recognized over several years by the Human Rights Campaign for being among the top companies to work for LGBTQ equality, including perfect scores in 2017 and 2016 in Human Rights Commission’s Corporate Equality Index, which rates US companies on their treatment of LGBTQ consumers, investors and employees.” OutBermuda promotes and supports the rights and protection of the LGBTQ community in Bermuda. Its website is OutBermuda. RG.
2018. March 28. The man suing the Government over the axing of same-sex marriage has filmed a video designed to attract financial backers for his legal fight. Rod Ferguson said the Domestic Partnership Act 2017, which replaced same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships, was a “legal booby prize” for gay couples in the one-minute recording. Mr Ferguson said in the video: “Bermuda made headlines this February when it passed a law that took away the right of same-sex couples to marry, replacing it with domestic partnerships, the legal booby prize for couples whose love for one another is just a little bit ... hmmm.” He added he was “tormented” for most of the 18 years he grew up in Bermuda “on the suspicion of my being gay”. Mr Ferguson said: “The reason this case is important is that Bermuda already made same-sex marriage legal through a court case less than a year ago, so this legislation, bowing to the homophobic will of the majority, is actually a step backward. Many advocated a boycott of Bermuda but the best way to help correct this injustice is to help fund the legal fight to invalidate this discriminatory law. Please support the Crowd Justice campaign with any amount that you can.” The video was produced by Crowd Justice, the online crowdfunding platform for legal action where donations can be made towards Mr Ferguson’s campaign. A total of 174 people had pledged £34,287 — about $48,537 — towards the £50,000 target by yesterday afternoon. Mr Ferguson’s effort came as marriage equality in Bermuda continued to spark debate in the United Kingdom. Boris Johnson, the British Foreign Secretary, was asked by Labour MP Chris Bryant last week why no British government minister had told Bermuda not to abolish same-sex marriage. Mr Johnson said during a session of the Foreign Affairs Committee that he had a “long conversation” on the subject with David Burt, the Premier, last month. Mr Johnson added: “I made the point to him — what I passionately believe — that one of the reasons why this city of London, of which I used to be Mayor, one of the reasons why it’s a fantastic place to live, is people feel like they can live their lives in any way they want providing they do no harm to others and that it is a great economic benefit to show that spirit. That was the argument I made to him.” Mr Burt confirmed the phone conversation took place. He said yesterday: “No new ground was covered. However, I reiterated the Bermuda Government’s position on the matter, which was passed in both houses of the Legislature and given the assent of the UK’s appointed Governor.” Mr Bryant has raised the Domestic Partnership Act in the House of Commons several times. He asked last month why Mr Johnson “allowed Her Majesty’s Governor of Bermuda to assent to a bill that will abolish same-sex marriage in Bermuda”. Harriet Baldwin, Minister for the Department of Development, said that the foreign secretary decided “it would not be appropriate to use the power to block legislation, which can only be used where there is a legal or constitutional basis for doing so, and even then, only in exceptional circumstances”. She added: “It is important to recognize that the regime for domestic partnerships implemented by Bermuda in its Domestic Partnership Act can also meet the European Court of Human Rights requirement for legal recognition of same-sex relationships.” Ms Baldwin wrote in a March 1 letter to Mr Bryant, which he later posted on Twitter: “We must ... recognize that major attitudinal changes cannot be imposed from outside.” The BBC reported on Monday that Carnival Corporation, the cruise firm that owns P&O and Cunard, faced a boycott from LGBT travelers after gay weddings on its Bermuda-registered ships were cancelled. Human rights lawyer Jamison Firestone wrote an open letter to the company and accused Carnival of “colluding with a homophobic government by continuing to register its 24 ships in Bermuda”. P&O has said it is opposed to the new law.
2018. March 7. The man fighting the repeal of same-sex marriage has described the intention of politicians to try to increase LGBTQ tourism to Bermuda as “pretty ballsy”. Rod Ferguson reacted after Jamahl Simmons, the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism, told the House of Assembly on Monday of the importance of attracting the LGBTQ community to the island only three months after MPs voted to stop same-sex marriage by introducing the Domestic Partnership Act. Leah Scott, Deputy Opposition Leader and shadow tourism minister also voiced her support for targeting the demographic. Ferguson, 38, who has launched a legal challenge to the new Act, said yesterday: “I think they really need to work on their messaging if they want to say that a segment of the population is not quite fully human, but that we would like to take their valuable dollars. It’s very silly to say to the world that we would like to profit from LGBTQ tourists at the same time as we are discriminating against them.” During the Budget debate on Monday, Mr Simmons promised initiatives to attract LGBTQ visitors would be “rolled out over the next couple of months”. Ms Scott said that while she did not support same-sex marriage “the LGBTQ community spends money, and they spend big money”. Mr Ferguson said the island had made a “damning statement to the world” by enacting the legislation. He added: “I don’t think anyone’s thought of the fact that it might be a boon to tourism. You might get just a rush of bigots who want to support Bermuda.” He said Ms Scott’s stance on not supporting same-sex marriage, while at the same time wanting to attract LGBTQ visitors, was “the new playbook of the Right”. Mr Ferguson explained: “Bigotry with compassion is the way that I describe it. It was used in the Preserve Marriage campaign by one of my classmates from school, saying we can love our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters but we don’t have to agree with them. But they don’t recognize they are saying it’s a disagreement about the value of a human being.” Winston Godwin, who won the right to marry his partner Greg DeRoche after a legal battle last year, said the Domestic Partnership Act was a “direct contradiction” to the calls made by Mr Simmons and Ms Scott. Mr Godwin added: “You are essentially saying we don’t agree with who you love, and we don’t believe you should have the right to marry, but we recognize your worth as a community and we welcome you and want you to spend money here.” Mr Godwin said that the aspects of the LGBTQ community that Bermuda wanted to accept could not be cherry picked. He explained: “We are a packaged deal; us, our rights and our money. Mr Godwin said that “little to nothing” was done to make the local LGBTQ community feel welcome. He added: “How can we possibly be targeting other demographics?” A spokesman for the Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda said the group was “shocked by the contradictory comments” made on Monday. He said: “If the Government seeks to make Bermuda more hospitable for the LGBTQ community, it should start with its own citizens. With the recent passage of the Domestic Partnership Act, the Government of Bermuda has made it patently clear that it has little interest in the well-being of LGBTQ individuals.” He described the exchange in the House of Assembly as “disingenuous at best and hypocritical posturing at worst”. The spokesman added: “The Domestic Partnership Act has created a stigma that Bermuda will likely never be able to completely rid itself of. In an industry in which word of mouth both makes and breaks success, the Bermuda Government has failed not only Bermuda’s LGBTQ community first and foremost, but the Bermuda hospitality industry as a whole.” Kevin Dallas, chief executive at the Bermuda Tourism Authority, said that the organization's efforts were not about specifically targeting LGBTQ tourism for Bermuda. Mr Dallas explained: “Our research indicates many companies, consumers and travelers, including the overwhelming majority of the younger visitors powering Bermuda’s growth, care about LGBTQ equality. Our response to the Domestic Partnership Act is therefore designed to reassure a much wider target audience that Bermuda’s tourism industry is inclusive and committed to treating every visitor with respect.” Mr Dallas said that Mr Simmons had been briefed in New York about “the actions the BTA can take to make sure that all visitors, including LGBTQ visitors, feel safe and welcome in Bermuda”. He said that the BTA’s decision to, last year, join the International Gay & Lesbian Travel Association was part of the quangos outreach. The Domestic Partnership Act was passed by Parliament in December and given Royal Assent by John Rankin, the Governor, last month. It was created to stop same-sex marriages and replace them with partnership arrangements open to both gay and straight couples. The law is due to come into effect on June 1.
2018. March 6. Initiatives to attract LGBTQ travelers to Bermuda are coming, the House of Assembly heard yesterday. Jamahl Simmons, the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism, said: “Bermuda has to be a place that welcomes all. It has to be a place where all can feel included and a part of a great experience.” Mr Simmons said that the Bermuda Tourism Authority had held meetings in New York specifically focusing on LGBTQ tourism. He added: “There will be some initiatives rolled out over the next couple of months.” The comments came during a debate on the Budget for Economic Development and Tourism. Leah Scott, deputy Opposition leader and Shadow Minister of Tourism and Transport, said that the LGBTQ tourism market was one that Bermuda needed to tap into. But she said: “I don’t know how we are going to do this with the Domestic Partnership Act.” Ms Scott repeated that she was not in support of same-sex marriage. She added: “However, what people do with their lives and in their houses is their business. At the end of the day, the LGBTQ community spends money, and they spend big money.” Ms Scott said LGBTQ tourism was worth $211 billion per year worldwide. She added: “This is an area that we need to get with the programme on. This is an area that we actually need to pursue and investigate.” Mr Simmons said that Ms Scott “has it right”. Referencing the controversial Domestic Partnership Act, Mr Simmons said: “When you compare Bermuda to many of the destinations in the Caribbean, Bermuda is far in advance of many of our competitors.” He added: “Bermuda has now done something that many of our competitors have not done: guaranteed statutory rights for same-sex couples. When I have somebody e-mail me and say ‘I’m canceling my trip and I’m going to Jamaica’, then clearly we have a better message to deliver.” The Domestic Partnership Act was passed by Parliament in December and given Royal Assent by John Rankin, the Governor, last month. The law has yet to come into effect. It was created to stop same-sex marriages and replace them with partnership arrangements open to both gay and straight couples. A Supreme Court challenge on the law will be heard on May 21 and 22.
2018. March 1. Same-sex couples will be able to marry until the end of May, the home affairs minister revealed yesterday. Walton Brown said the introduction of the Domestic Partnership Act had been delayed to June 1 to allow planned same-sex marriages in Bermuda, and on island-registered ships, to take place. He added that same-sex couples could still apply for a marriage licence until May 12, but can only apply for a domestic partnership after that date. Mr Brown said: “Commencement has been delayed to allow for any same-sex marriages that have licences already issued and have been scheduled to be conducted in Bermuda, or on-board Bermuda-registered ships, to actually take place.” Mr Brown, speaking during the Budget debate on Home Affairs, added: “The Registry General will continue to accept applications for same-sex marriages until May 12, 2018. Any application submitted by a same-sex couple after that date must be for a domestic partnership under the new Act, not a marriage under the Marriage Act 1944 or the Maritime Marriage Act 1999. The Registrar certificate for marriage, issued by the Registrar-General, under either of these Acts on or before May 12, 2018, will be treated as a licence for domestic partnership if the couple do not marry on or before May 31, 2018.” Mr Brown added that anyone interested in becoming a domestic partnership officer should contact the Registry General at 297-7739 or 298-7199 for more information. His remarks came as One Bermuda Alliance MP Patricia Gordon-Pamplin noted the budget drop in expected maritime licensing fees for the upcoming fiscal year, from $200,000 to an estimated $150,000 for 2018-19. She asked Parliament if the island’s failure to allow Bermudian-registered ships to conduct same-sex marriages had caused the downturn. However, Mr Brown was unable to respond during the 20 minutes remaining to field Opposition questions. The Domestic Partnership Act was passed by Parliament in December and given Royal Assent by John Rankin, the Governor, on February 7. The Royal Gazette reported yesterday that a date has been set in the Supreme Court to challenge the new law designed to replace same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships open to gay and straight couples. Chief Justice Ian Kawaley will hear the civil case brought by gay Bermudian Rod Ferguson, 38, against Attorney-General Kathy Lynn Simmons on May 21 and 22. The Domestic Partnership Act reversed a Supreme Court decision last May that enabled gay people to wed on the island and on Bermuda-registered cruise ships around the world. The move sparked international criticism, including from Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, who said she was “seriously disappointed”.
2018. February 28. A date has been set for a Supreme Court challenge against a new law designed to replace same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships. Chief Justice Ian Kawaley will hear the civil case brought by gay Bermudian Rod Ferguson, 38, against Attorney-General Kathy Lynn Simmons on May 21 and 22. Mr Ferguson’s lawsuit, filed on February 15, claims that the new Domestic Partnership Act is unconstitutional and will subject gay people to “inhuman or degrading treatment” by denying them the right to wed. He is seeking to have the legislation declared void by the court on the basis that it is inconsistent with his fundamental rights as set out in the Constitution. The Domestic Partnership Act was passed by Parliament in December and given Royal Assent by John Rankin, the Governor, on February 7, but has yet to come into effect. The law was created to halt same-sex marriages and replace them with partnership arrangements open to both gay and straight couples. The Ministry of Home Affairs said last week that the Act would come into operation “on such day as the minister may appoint by notice published in the [Official] Gazette”. A request for more information yesterday received no response by press time. Former attorney-general Mark Pettingill, who is representing Mr Ferguson, said the law not yet being in force was unlikely to make any difference to whether the case could be heard. The legislation reversed a Supreme Court decision last May that enabled gay people to wed on the island and on Bermuda-registered cruise ships around the world. The judgment came after gay couple Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche took legal action against the Registrar-General in the wake of a refusal to post their wedding banns. Parliament’s decision to remove the right of gay people to marry sparked international criticism, including from Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, who said she was “seriously disappointed”.
2018. February 27. A trial date has been set for a Supreme Court challenge against a new law aimed at replacing same-sex marriage. Chief Justice Ian Kawaley will hear the civil case brought by gay Bermudian Rod Ferguson, 38, against Attorney-General Kathy Lynn Simmons on May 21 and 22. Mr Ferguson’s lawsuit, filed on February 15, claims that the new Domestic Partnership Act is unconstitutional and will subject gay people to “inhuman or degrading treatment” by denying them the right to wed. He is seeking to have the legislation declared void by the court, on the basis that it is inconsistent with his fundamental rights as set out in the Constitution. The Domestic Partnership Act was passed in Parliament in December and given Royal assent by John Rankin, the Governor, on February 7, but has yet to come into effect. The Ministry of Home Affairs said last week it would come into operation “on such day as the minister may appoint by notice published in the [Official] Gazette”. The legislation reverses a Supreme Court decision from May last year that enabled gay people to wed here — a judgment won after Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche litigated against the Registrar-General for refusing to post their wedding banns. Parliament’s decision to remove the right of gay people to marry has been met with criticism from around the world, including from British Prime Minister Theresa May, who said she was “seriously disappointed”.
2018. February 22. An about-turn on same-sex marriage is “the last straw” for Bermudian Joe Gibbons and his Canadian partner, Christopher Vee. The couple are in the process of buying a business in Canada, where they aim to settle later this year. Mr Gibbons said: “We’ve been in a relationship for 15 years and married in Canada for three. We want to get on with our lives." He does not think “too many people will leave” as a result of the legislation to end same-sex marriage, but predicted that “more and more people won’t go back to Bermuda” as a result of the change. Mr Gibbons added: “I turn 65 this year. I’ve done my bit for Bermuda, but Bermuda does not have the decency to do its bit back, not just me but for hundreds of people. I never thought I would have said that.” The couple’s story was carried by Reuters news agency yesterday in a report by Bermudian journalist Emma Farge. The report came as it was revealed that the Geoscience & Society Summit planned for Bermuda in September is to go elsewhere as a result of the domestic partnership legislation. Organisers pulled out of Bermuda over the Act, which will end same-sex marriages made possible by a Supreme Court ruling in May last year. Mr Gibbons said the online backlash against the island’s move, including the hashtag #BoycottBermuda, was “unfortunate”. He added: “I don’t encourage it, but it’s out there on social media.” Mr Gibbons said he remembered the 1994 controversy over the Stubbs Bill, which decriminalised buggery. Churches overseas threatened to boycott the island if the legislation passed. The Stubbs Bill drew fierce opposition from Bermuda’s religious community, which banded together as the Christian Coalition. The Bill was approved by the legislature in May of that year. Mr Gibbons said that attitudes towards gay people had not changed much since then. He added: “It’s the same underlying prejudice. It’s so much more deeply rooted than just anti-gay.” Mr Gibbons said that Bermuda may end up “learning the hard way” because of the social-media revolution since the 1990s. He added: “We don’t make money. Money comes to us. That’s how it’s been from Day 1. If you put up barriers and tell people they are not welcome, then you have to accept changes in your own lifestyle.” Mr Gibbons said Bermuda was still “a great place” and that Canada had “people who don’t approve of same-sex couples, but that’s neither here nor there”. The couple were part of the 2015 legal action brought by a group called Bermuda Bred, which won same-sex partners the rights to live and work on the same basis as spouses of Bermudians. Mr Gibbons said: “After ten years of getting work permits for Chris, we decided that either this is going to change, or we are leaving”. He added: “I had spoken to fairly senior people in the One Bermuda Alliance government who absolutely didn’t care. It was not a vote getter. We won in the Supreme Court, but it didn’t give him further rights.” Mr Gibbons said that after the Domestic Partnership Act, the couple had decided “to live where we can be treated as equals and do business as equals, without people looking at us askance”. The Act was passed by the legislature in December, and granted Royal Assent by John Rankin, the Governor, this month. The Ministry of Home Affairs said the Act will come into operation “on such day as the minister may appoint by notice published in the Gazette”.
2018. February 20. An international equal rights group based in the United States has urged its members to ignore a call to boycott Bermuda over its decision to ditch same-sex marriage. Jessica Stern, the executive director of OutRight Action International, said the ruling this month was “a step backwards for equality”, but she added: “However, in response to this decision a misguided reaction is unfolding — a call to #BoycottBermuda. “The online campaign is spearheaded mainly by people in the US and Europe, who believe that a tourism boycott will show the Bermudian Government that repealing same-sex marriage was a mistake. “To be clear, the demand for this boycott is not coming from grassroots organisations in Bermuda. In fact, LGBTIQ Bermudians are coming out against the boycott. This campaign stands to hurt rather than help the LGBTIQ community in Bermuda.” The Domestic Partnership Act, which replaces same-sex marriage with civil unions, was passed by MPs and the Senate in December, and given Royal Assent by John Rankin, the Governor, this month. Social-media users across the world launched a protest against the Act with the Twitter hashtag #BoycottBermuda. Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn wrote on Twitter on February 12: “Can we get #BoycottBermuda trending? Countries that are slow to evolve are one thing. Countries going backward are another altogether.” British photographer Thomas Faull wrote: “Rip up travel plans to homophobic Bermuda #BoycottBermuda.” Bermudian actor Nick Christopher wrote: “@Bermuda this is shameful. I love representing my country all across America doing what I love, but I will not be associated with hate and injustice. I’m deeply saddened. #MarriageEquality #WakeUp #BoycottBermuda.” Former Bermuda Sun journalist Mark Kennedy, now based in Bogota, Colombia, wrote: “#Bermuda, as much a backwards-looking, religious backwater as I remember it.” Ms Stern described the boycott as uninformed and ill-advised. She said: “It could increase discrimination against local LGBTIQ people, who may very well be used as scapegoats for any negative impact on tourism and the economy; not to mention the consequences for LGBTIQ people who themselves work in the tourism industry. People, and the media, in the US and Europe ought not to push their own agendas and instead listen to the priority of LGBTIQ groups on the ground. This simple but important rule is central to the way that OutRight functions and engages in enabling social justice. We consult, listen to, and are guided by local leaders who are best placed to inform strategy and programmes to bring about change. Without listening to voices from the ground, we all stand to do more harm than good. I ask that you #DontBoycottBermuda and instead learn how to empower local organisations and the movement there.”
2018. February 20. A legal challenge to Bermuda’s decision to ditch gay marriage will attempt to raise money through crowd funding. Tony Brannon, who organized the fundraising effort, said that the legal challenge was an important one for human rights. Mr Brannon, a musician and activist, added: “We know that the LGBTQ community are very interested in this, and I know that we can get a lot of support from them globally. I think there’s a lot of support out there that can help this.” Rod Ferguson, 38, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against the Attorney-General last week. Mr Ferguson, who lives in the United States, claims the Domestic Partnership Act, which replaced gay marriage with civil unions, is unconstitutional. The Act was approved in Parliament in December and given Royal Assent by the Governor, John Rankin, this month. Mark Pettingill, a former attorney-general, is representing Mr Ferguson. Mr Pettingill, of Chancery Legal, also represented gay couple Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche whose Supreme Court victory last May paved the way for same-sex marriage. Mr Pettingill told The Royal Gazette this month that Mr Ferguson’s lawsuit could end up in Europe’s highest courts. Mr Brannon said the cost of the legal challenge could be significant “depending on how far up the chain this goes”. He added that Mr Ferguson’s lawsuit was a fight that was bigger than Bermuda. Mr Brannon explained that other groups around the world had taken the island’s reversal of same-sex marriage as a sign of encouragement. He added that some thought “Bermuda’s done it; we can do it, too. We can overturn these rights”. Mr Brannon also said that misinformation had been circulated in connection with the non-binding referendum held on same-sex marriage in 2016. He said that the idea that 68 per cent of Bermudians had voted against same-sex marriage was a “complete lie”. Mr Brannon explained: “The fact of the matter is of the 44,000 registered voters, only 14,000 voted no. So 14,000 against 44,000 is 32 per cent — less than a third.” About 6,500 voters expressed support for same-sex marriage. Mr Brannon added: “Fifty-four per cent didn’t show up to vote.” He said that he expected the crowd funding website to launch this week.
2018. February 9. A pressure group set up to fight same-sex marriage has welcomed news that the Governor had signed an Act to outlaw gay weddings. But OutBermuda, a gay rights group, said that it was only a matter of time before same-sex marriages were reintroduced. Melvyn Bassett, chairman of Preserve Marriage Bermuda, said the group was “thankful” that Bermuda had backtracked on a legal decision last May that paved the way for same-sex marriages and introduce civil partnerships instead, which will also be open to straight couples. Dr Bassett said: “Although Preserve Marriage does not condone any legal union which may provide legal footing for same-sex marriage, we do wish to commend the Government on being the first and only government in the world to reverse the laws on same-sex marriage.’ Preserve Marriage broke its silence on the row two days after John Rankin gave Royal Assent to the controversial Act, which sparked an international backlash and calls for a boycott of Bermuda. Dr Bassett said that the European Court of Human Rights did not impose obligations on countries to introduce equal access to marriage, but did expect states to recognize same-sex relationships — which was fulfilled by the Domestic Partnership Act signed by Mr Rankin. Dr Bassett added: Preserve Marriage will continue to educate the public as to the importance and benefits of traditional marriage to the society. “We are also committed to ensuring that the definition of marriage between a man and a woman remains in this country. Our aim is to continue to support families by working with other community groups that support healthy marriages and healthy families. To that end, Preserve Marriage has begun efforts to change its legal name to Preserve Marriage and Family.” A spokesman for OutBermuda said: “OutBermuda recognizes that our country is on a journey towards greater acceptance of LGBTQ people and families. This is not the first time a legislature has intervened to overturn a court ruling which supports marriage equality. It happened previously in Hawaii and in California. We believe lasting change on the issue of marriage equality requires us to work within the broader community to change hearts and minds, to reverse the perception that marriage equality is somehow detrimental to our island. This can and will be done.” The spokesman added: “We are encouraged by expressions of support both locally and internationally for Bermuda’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer people, and extend our tremendous gratitude on behalf of the community here. Marriage equality is a goal, but it is not the only goal. We encourage our allies to reach out as we continue to promote and support the well-being, health, dignity, security, safety and protection of the LGBTQ community in Bermuda. While we are disappointed, we are not powerless.”
2018. February 8. The battle for same-sex marriage could end up in Europe’s highest courts, lawyer Mark Pettingill said last night. Mr Pettingill said that Royal Assent for a law designed to replace same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships meant that any further legal action would need to be heard in higher courts. The former attorney-general, who fought the May 2017 Supreme Court case that paved the way for same-sex marriage, added: “This is now something that would necessarily invite consideration beyond our shores. There is potential for a challenge going all the way to the European courts.” Mr Pettingill was speaking after John Rankin, the Governor, rubber-stamped the Domestic Partnership Act, which was drawn up to replace same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships for both gay and straight couples. Mr Pettingill and his team represented Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, in their successful landmark case against the Bermuda Government after the Registrar-General refused to publish their marriage banns. He said: “I take the view, as do a number of other lawyers, that there is a case to be heard on the basis of the rights enshrined in our Constitution. The question becomes, are there any relevant parties that are prepared to take up that fight? I feel that potential is there. Unfortunately, there are the risks of losing, which would probably incur substantial legal costs. These things are not cheap to run. Anybody who decided to take up that challenge as a litigant would have to think very carefully about the possibility that they could lose, and the risks involved.” Mr Pettingill explained that a challenge to the Domestic Partnership Act would represent “a very different case, although of course it related to the same legal issues”. He said: “It is a fundamentally different position to argue in law. We are dealing with same-sex marriage, with something that became legal on the basis of human rights issues and is now being effectively taken away by an Act of Parliament. To challenge that clearly is embarking on new legal ground as it relates to the issues and facts associated. It presents a far tougher case and a far longer and potentially more drawn-out battle.” Mr Pettingill said would-be challengers had already approached him to weigh up the merits of further legal action in an international arena. He added: “We will have to see. I am obviously deeply disappointed, as is a whole segment of right-minded people who feel the same way on human rights issues. I cannot say I am startled or surprised. It was given full consideration by the Governor. The question now becomes, is there a constitutional legal issue that can bring a challenge in relation to this assent?” Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs, said the Act represented “a compromise piece of legislation which does not bring any high level of satisfaction to any side” in the island’s long-running row over same-sex marriage. Mr Brown, speaking from London, added the provisions of the Act were “the only position that could be taken at this point. This difficult piece of legislation was developed in such a way as to ensure that it fully complies with our Constitution. Clearly anyone has the right to challenge anything they want, but it must be a challenge with merit.” Mr Brown questioned the delay between the Act’s backing by Parliament and Mr Rankin’s decision to give it Royal Assent. He said that the constitutional implications of the Domestic Partnership Act had already been “assessed in great detail” by the Attorney-General’s chambers. Mr Brown added: “All I will say is that I have never seen any piece of legislation attract this much attention in terms of the timing of the Governor’s signature. It has been duly passed by both Houses of Parliament. It passed with a large majority in the House of Assembly, and it was passed by five government and three independent senators, representing the will of the people. After this very important piece of legislation, we will move to develop others to help put Bermuda into a better place.” Mr Godwin said he and his husband were “deeply saddened. “It’s a sad day for Bermuda. It’s a sad day for human rights. The Governor was placed between a rock and a hard place with this poorly planned and rushed Bill.” But he told the island’s LGBTQ people: “While Greg and I were the face of this case, we represented every single one of you and helped to give a voice to those that didn’t have one. Because of you, we were able to make a difference in the lives of eight couples and that’s something that shouldn’t be understated or forgotten. You are all loved and are worthy of love.” The Governor’s decision attracted fast condemnation from overseas. Chris Bryant, the Opposition Labour MP who called for the House of Commons debate, tweeted last night: “So Boris Johnson has granted permission to Bermuda to abolish same-sex marriage. This totally undermines UK efforts to advance LGBT rights.” Ty Cobb, director at Washington-based Human Rights Campaign Global, called the move a “deplorable action. Governor Rankin and the Bermuda Parliament have shamefully made Bermuda the first territory in the world to repeal marriage equality. This decision strips loving same-sex couples of the right to marry and jeopardizes Bermuda’s international reputation and economy. Despite this deplorable action, the fight for marriage equality in Bermuda will continue until the day when every Bermudian is afforded the right to marry the person they love.” Sarah Kate Ellis, president and chief executive of New York’s Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, added: “LGBTQ couples and their children in Bermuda should know that the global community of LGBTQ people and allies will stand with them in rectifying this unjust and hurtful news. Love can never be rolled back.” Clare O’Connor, a Bermudian journalist living overseas, promised not to send any business towards her homeland. “I will be encouraging my LGBTQ friends to spend their money elsewhere,” said Ms O’Connor, formerly of Forbes magazine, who has almost 22,000 followers on Twitter. “This is despicable and I hope the Progressive Labour Party and Governor understand the damage they’ve done.” Rainbow Alliance Bermuda and OutBermuda did not respond to requests for comment by press time. Preserve Marriage Bermuda, which campaigned against same-sex marriage, also did not respond to a request for comment.
2018. February 7. Same-sex marriage in Bermuda was outlawed yesterday after the Governor gave Royal Assent to an Act designed to replace it with civil partnerships. John Rankin signed the legislation 61 days after it was backed in the House of Assembly and 56 days in the wake of its approval by Senate. Mr Rankin said the Domestic Partnership Act was signed into law “after careful consideration in line with my responsibilities under the Constitution”. The move ended weeks of speculation over whether Britain would allow the legislation, and dashed the hopes of activists in Bermuda and overseas who had asked Mr Rankin to reject the new law. Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs, speaking from London last night said that he was pleased the green light had been given to domestic partnerships, which will be available to both gay and heterosexual couples. He added: “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 recognizing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples.” Mr Brown said that same-sex couples already married under Bermuda law will continue to be recognized as married. He added that “any overseas same-sex marriages taking place before and during the transitional period will also be capable of recognition as marriages in Bermuda”. The island came under the international spotlight over the controversy and it was branded the first country to outlaw same-sex marriage after it was backed by the courts. But Mr Brown said the introduction of the legislation made Bermuda, an associate member of the Caribbean organisation Caricom, “among the first English-speaking Caribbean islands to introduce and pass a law that provides legal recognition to same-sex couples”. He added the partnerships will give same-sex couples rights “equivalent to those enjoyed by heterosexual married couples — rights that were not guaranteed before the passage of this Act”. Mr Brown said guaranteed rights include “the right to inherit in the case of no will, the right to a partner’s pensions, access to property rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of one’s partner and the right to live and work in Bermuda as the domestic partner of a Bermudian”. Bermuda’s same-sex marriage row went as far as the UK House of Commons. Sir Alan Duncan, Minister of State at the Foreign Office, said during a debate on the subject last month that Britain was “disappointed” by Bermuda’s decision to reverse marriage equality. The controversial legislation was introduced in November 2017 by Mr Brown in the wake of a bitter national debate over allowing same-sex couples to wed. It followed a landmark decision by the Supreme Court in May 2017, when Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons ruled that the island’s Registrar-General could not reject a gay couple’s application to marry in Bermuda. The decision paved the way for same-sex marriage on the island and the first gay couple exchanged vows at the Registrar-General’s office less than a month later. A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Home Affairs said the Act gives rights and benefits to domestic partnerships that were “almost exactly the same as the rights and benefits of marriage”. She said: “Clause 50 states that where the words specified in the table, which include marriage, spouse, husband, wife, widow and widower, are mentioned throughout Bermuda legislation, these are to be read in the case of a person in a domestic partnership as the corresponding word specified, that is domestic partnership, domestic partner or surviving domestic partner. Clause 50 also provides that references to next of kin and relative include a domestic partner.” Same-sex marriage and civil unions were voted on in a non-binding referendum in June 2016. The referendum failed to attract the 50 per cent minimum of registered voters needed to rule that questions were “answered”. But those who did vote rejected both same-sex marriage and civil unions by a margin of more than two to one. Mr Brown said last night the referendum showed that the majority of Bermudians did not support same-sex marriage. He added it was the Government’s belief that “this Act addresses this position while also complying with the European courts by ensuring that recognition and protection for same-sex couples are put in place. “Bermuda will continue to live up to its well-earned reputation as a friendly and welcoming place, where all visitors, including LGBT visitors, will continue to enjoy our beauty, our warm hospitality and inclusive culture.”
2018. January 30. A decision by Britain to overrule Bermuda’s attempt to ditch same-sex marriage would be “an exceptional step”, the House of Commons in London heard last night. Sir Alan Duncan, Minister of State at the Foreign Office, said the UK was “disappointed” by the island Parliament’s decision to backtrack on marriage equality. He added that a number of UK Overseas Territories had moved to introduce same-sex marriage, but that Britain had no plans to impose it on its overseas territories. Sir Alan was speaking during a House of Commons adjournment debate on Bermuda’s 2017 Domestic Partnership Act, which was passed last month. The legislation is designed to replace same-sex marriage with watered-down civil partnerships. But Sir Alan, the first openly gay Conservative MP in the House of Commons, said the UK would consider the implications of the proposed Bermuda law “very carefully”. The debate was scheduled after opposition Labour MP Chris Bryant called on Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, to weigh in on the issue. Mr Bryant said Bermuda’s legislature had been in effect “begging the Foreign Secretary to allow it to cancel same-sex marriage”. Last night, Mr Bryant appealed to David Burt, the Premier, and Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs, to withdraw the legislation. The former Overseas Territories Minister, who entered into a civil partnership in 2010, said: “Bermuda and the Premier of Bermuda — I hope you change your mind. I hope Bermuda changes its mind, and I hope the Government does not sign this Bill into law.” Mr Bryant branded the Domestic Partnerships Act “a deeply unpleasant and cynical piece of legislation” that might appear “the same as civil partnerships in this country — but it is not”. He added: “I have never seen a piece of legislation that so clearly declares, from the outset, that it is inconsistent with all the other laws in the land, including the Human Rights Act and the Constitution.” He compared discrimination against gay people to the view “over two centuries or more” that slavery was part of the natural order. Mr Bryant said that John Rankin, the Governor, was “entirely within his rights” to delay signing the Bill into law or to refuse Royal Assent. He admitted that he had been told to “butt out” in some of the messages he had received, But Mr Bryant said he disagreed because the legislation “impinges on how Britain is viewed around the world”. He told the House of Commons that the Bill would also affect cruise ships registered on the island. Mr Bryant said that cruise line Cunard, which had advertised gay weddings after a Bermuda Supreme Court decision last year paved the way for gay marriage, now feared it would lose the ability to perform the ceremonies. Same-sex marriage is legal in England, Wales and Scotland but not in Northern Ireland, where the hardline Democratic Unionist Party blocked it, despite a majority in favour in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Mr Bryant said that “this Government, here in Westminster, needs to look hard at Northern Ireland, and implement equality”. Sir Alan did not give any indication on what Mr Rankin would do about the Bill. If Mr Rankin approves the domestic partnership law same-sex marriages will be outlawed, although those that have taken place so far would remain valid. Mr Rankin has taken legal advice on the legislation and its constitutional implications and is still considering his decision. Mr Bryant told UK MPs there had been eight same-sex marriages since the Supreme Court ruling and another four banns published. Sir Alan did not signal UK support for the Domestic Partnership Act, but said it represented “progress in comparison to the situation just a year ago”.
2018. January 25. The attempt by Bermuda to ban same-sex marriage will damage Britain’s international reputation if it is allowed to go ahead, a UK politician warned yesterday. Chris Bryant, who will lead a debate on the controversy in the House of Commons on Monday, told The Royal Gazette that the British Government should block a Bill designed to replace same-sex marriage with civil partnerships. The Domestic Partnership Act, which aims to reverse a Supreme Court ruling last May that opened the way for gay marriages, has yet to be signed into law by John Rankin, the Governor. Mr Bryant said: “I think Britain will harm its reputation internationally for leading on such issues as this when we basically say ‘yes, in one of our overseas territories, which has a strong link to the United Kingdom and has the same queen, we are prepared to sanction getting rid of same-sex marriage’.” He added: “I used to be a minister in the Church of England. I understand some people’s religious issues around all this, but 200 years ago the Church of England still thought slavery was OK. I think in 200 years’ time, Christians will be saying ‘why weren’t we celebrating love?’. Lots of Christians do, of course.” Mr Bryant, a former Overseas Territories Minister at the Foreign Office, was speaking after he was given a half-hour adjournment debate on the Bermuda Bill, to be held at the end of Monday’s session at Westminster. He will speak for 15 minutes before Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, responds for the Government. Mr Bryant, the opposition Labour MP for Rhondda in Wales, said: “I’ll say I think the Government should always sit down with politicians in each of the overseas territories and try not to get to these standoffs. I think the only legitimate position for a government that supports same-sex marriage is to say to those territories it must stand there as it does here in the United Kingdom.” Mr Bryant added he “very much” valued the links between the UK and its overseas territories. He said: “I think of British citizens in Bermuda as being just as much a British citizen as a constituent of mine in Rhondda.” He added the close ties meant the UK was prepared to step in with help last year when Caribbean territories were hammered by hurricanes. Mr Bryant, who entered into a civil partnership in 2010, said: “That’s the kind of link we want to retain.” He added he believed Britain, where same-sex marriage was introduced in 2014, had a duty to intervene in Bermuda, as it should in Northern Ireland, where marriage equality is also illegal. Same-sex marriage in the province was blocked by the Democratic Unionist Party in 2015, despite support from a majority of Northern Ireland Assembly members. Mr Bryant said: “I would be telling the Government to do the same in Northern Ireland. When Labour was in government and we introduced civil partnerships, we said they had to happen in Northern Ireland.” The backbencher added that a reversal of marriage equality by the island’s government would signal to gay couples who have already wed that they were “not really” married, even if those marriages would still be considered legal. Mr Bryant said: “In the past, people thought homosexuality was something you chose. You chose to have sex with other men or other women.” But he added no one could seriously hold that view today. He said: “You’d be hard pressed to find a serious psychiatrist in the world who thinks it’s a mental health problem or that it’s a choice. I say God made me this way. I don’t think he would want me to live rejected by society or without the opportunity that love affords.” Monday’s debate will not result in a parliamentary resolution, but Mr Bryant said he hoped the British Government would pledge to stand by same-sex marriage and stand by its “strong links” with Bermuda. The Foreign Office said this month that it was “disappointed” by the Domestic Partnership Act, which passed in Parliament last month. But a spokeswoman added that “this is a matter for the Bermuda Government acting within the terms of the Bermuda Constitution and in accordance with international law”.
2018. January 24. Bermuda’s controversial move to ban same-sex marriage is to be debated by British politicians. Labour MP Chris Bryant has asked for an adjournment debate on the subject, which will take place at the end of Monday’s session in the House of Commons. The news came as the Bermuda Government waits on a decision by John Rankin, the Governor, on the Domestic Partnership Act 2017. The legislation, designed to replace same-sex marriage with civil unions, was passed by MPs last month, but Mr Rankin has yet to give it Royal Assent and sign it into law. Former attorney-general Mark Pettingill said yesterday that, from a constitutional perspective, it was “appropriate” and “proper” for the UK debate to take place. He added he hoped it would lead to a “consensus in the British Parliament that surely has to carry some weight”. Political commentator Charles Jeffers said Britain should stay out of the internal affairs of a self-governing territory, even if it remained under UK sovereignty. Mr Jeffers said he doubted if the debate was “going to go anywhere”. He added: “To me, it’s the fact that they have the audacity to discuss it, to even bring it up. It’s nothing but irritating.” Same-sex marriage has been legal in Bermuda since the Supreme Court ruled in May last year that it was discriminatory to deny gay couples the right to wed. The judgment was the result of a lawsuit brought by gay couple Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche against the Registrar-General’s decision to refuse to post their wedding banns. The Progressive Labour Party, in its General Election manifesto, underlined its opposition to gay marriage, but pledged to introduce legislation to give same-sex couples “similar legal benefits as heterosexual couples”. Walton Brown. the Minister of Home Affairs, tabled the Domestic Partnership Bill after the party’s election win last summer and it was approved by both the House of Assembly and the Senate in December. The move sparked international headlines and overseas media reported that Bermuda would become the first country in the world to reverse marriage equality. Mr Bryant, a former Church of England priest who entered into a civil union with his same-sex partner in 2010, raised the Bermuda decision in the House of Commons earlier this month and told MPs the island was taking an “entirely retrograde step”. He called on Boris Johnson, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to “make sure that the Government tells the Bermudian (Parliament very firmly ‘no way, we are sticking with same-sex marriage’.” Mr Jeffers, who said he opposed same-sex marriage but saw the Domestic Partnership Act as a suitable “compromise”, said he was not surprised the Westminster debate was to happen but that he was against it. He said: “Bermuda is a self-governing country. Britain has enough of their own problems to deal with. Why in the world do they feel the need to get involved in Bermuda’s internal situations?” Mr Jeffers added Britain’s House of Lords last week debated — and rejected — legislation designed to force Bermuda and other overseas territories to make their registers of beneficial ownership of companies public. He asked: “How much of this should we take?” Mr Jeffers said: “Britain does not financially assist us. It seems to me that whether they realize it or not, they are trying to say to these countries [the British Overseas Territories] that ‘we really don’t want you’.” Former One Bermuda Alliance MP Mr Pettingill, who represented Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche in their civil case, said: “Not only am I not surprised, I’m very pleased to see that the debate is being taken up at the highest level in Parliament in England. “It’s not only a matter of interest in Bermuda but, because of the aspects of our Constitution as they relate to assent and because of the international obligations to human rights that exist in the United Kingdom, it naturally becomes a public interest issue in the United Kingdom. I think it’s fair enough, I think it’s appropriate, I think it’s proper. That’s a constitutional view and what our Constitution dictates.” He added that he expected Mr Rankin to delay his decision on the legislation until after the debate. Mr Pettingill said: “He’s well entitled to sit on it. The Constitution allows him to do that. I’m sure he’s waiting for full consideration from the perspective of UK law and Parliament.” A Government House spokesman confirmed yesterday that the Bill was still under consideration by Mr Rankin. Home affairs minister Mr Brown declined to comment.
2018. January 17. A British politician has called on Boris Johnson, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to prevent Bermuda from taking the “entirely retrograde step” of reversing marriage equality. Chris Bryant, Labour MP for Rhondda, told the House of Commons last month that Bermuda’s Parliament was “begging the foreign secretary to allow it to cancel same-sex marriage” just six months after the Supreme Court judgment which enabled gay weddings to take place. He asked that Mr Johnson, who was not present in the Commons, come “to the House to explain his policy on Bermuda”. Mr Bryant added: “Six couples have already been married, and they are to be unmarried, which surely even this Government must think is wrong. Will the minister make sure that the Government tell the Bermudan (sic) Parliament very firmly: ‘No way, we are sticking with same-sex marriage’?” Mr Bryant’s remarks were made in reference to the Domestic Partnership Act 2017, which was passed in Bermuda last month and is aimed at replacing same-sex marriage with civil unions. John Rankin, the Governor, has yet to give assent to the bill to enable it to become law. If he does, no further gay marriages will be allowed. Those that have already taken place, either in Bermuda since the May 2017 court judgment or, prior to that, elsewhere in the world, will still be deemed legal marriages on the island. Asked for comment on Mr Bryant’s remarks, a spokeswoman for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said yesterday: “The UK Government is a proud supporter of LGBT rights and supports same-sex marriage. While the UK Government is disappointed with the implications of this Bill, this is a matter for the Bermuda Government acting within the terms of the Bermuda Constitution and in accordance with international law.” Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs, declined to comment, as did Mr Rankin. A Government House spokesman said: “The Governor is considering the Bill in accordance with Section 35(2) of the Constitution. In considering the Bill, he has taken legal advice.” Gay marriage became legal in the UK, apart from in Northern Ireland, in 2014. Previously, civil partnerships had been available since 2005 and couples in civil partnerships could convert those unions into legal marriages after a clause in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 came into force. Mr Bryant, a former Church of England priest, entered into a civil partnership in 2010. As of December 20, 2017, eight gay couples had married in Bermuda.
2018. January 10. The reversal of marriage equality in Bermuda continues to make international headlines, with a British newspaper reporting this week on the “devastation” of a couple whose cruise ship wedding has been cancelled. The Sun newspaper reported yesterday that Stephen Henderson, 29, and Stuart Andrews, 36, from Coventry, Warwickshire, were due to get married on a Bermuda-registered P&O cruise ship in July 2019 in the Bay of Biscay but were told by the cruise line on December 20 that their wedding could not take place. P&O, which ran a marketing campaign last year encouraging gay couples to wed on board its ships, explained to the couple that the Government of Bermuda was replacing same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships and offered a full refund. But Mr Henderson told the tabloid newspaper: “It is just mad. It is the 21st century. It is the most important day of our lives. We were planning so much already. We got everything organized.” A P&O spokeswoman told the UK’s Pink News last month that it was “very unhappy” with the Government’s decision to reverse marriage equality and did “not underestimate the disappointment this will cause those guests who have planned their weddings”. A spokeswoman told this newspaper yesterday that the May 2017 Supreme Court decision which allowed gay marriage in Bermuda had “delighted” the cruise line as it had wanted to offer same-sex ceremonies for “many years”. She said the introduction of domestic partnerships under a Bill passed by Parliament last month would “replace or overturn” that court ruling. “Although we are awaiting further information from Bermuda, it is unfortunately likely to be the case that Bermudian law will not permit a same-sex wedding ceremony on board our ships after January 2018,” added the spokeswoman. She said P&O Cruises would still love to welcome gay couples on board for a commitment or renewal of vows ceremony, officiated by the captain or a senior officer. The spokeswoman did not answer questions from this newspaper about how many P&O customers would be affected by wedding cancellations and whether the reversal of marriage equality would impact whether the cruise line registered its ships in Bermuda in the future. The Domestic Partnership Act has yet to be approved by John Rankin, the Governor, who has taken legal advice on the legislation. It cannot become law without his assent. A Government House spokesman said: “The Constitution does not stipulate a timeframe for assenting to Bills. It will take as long as is needed for the Governor to satisfy himself as to its compliance with the Constitution and international obligations. There are a number of legal arguments which have been put forward and need to be properly considered.” Couples whose marriage banns are posted before the law comes into effect will still be able to wed, according to the Ministry of Home Affairs. That includes another couple from the UK who are due to marry on January 17 on board a P&O ship. Vicky Marno and Siobhan Crosby, from Skegness, said yesterday that their ceremony in the Caribbean on board Azura was still fine to go ahead.
2017. December 30. John Rankin, the Governor of Bermuda, is taking legal advice on giving assent to a controversial Bill designed to replace same-sex marriage with “watered-down” domestic partnerships. Government House confirmed the Governor had asked for legal opinions on the Domestic Partnership Bill in line with provisions in the island’s Constitution. A spokesman said: “The Governor is continuing to consider the Bill in accordance with Section 35(2) of the Constitution. In considering the Bill, he is taking legal advice as appropriate.” The Domestic Partnership Bill was passed by both Houses of Parliament in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling in May that paved the way for same-sex couples to marry in Bermuda. The Constitution does not stipulate a time frame for assenting to Bills. It is understood that legal arguments over whether the Bill is in line with the Constitution, and international obligations, have to be considered. The Foreign Office said this month: “While the UK Government is disappointed with the implications of this Bill, this is a matter for the Bermuda Government acting within the terms of the Bermuda Constitution and in accordance with international law.” Section 35 (2) of the Constitution outlines procedures for the Governor to sign a Bill. The Governor has to signify that he assents or that he withholds assent or that he “reserves the Bill for the signification of Her Majesty’s pleasure”. The Governor has to “reserve for the signification of Her Majesty’s pleasure any Bill which appears to him, acting in his discretion ... to be inconsistent with any obligation of Her Majesty or of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom towards any other state or power or any international organisation”. The section also allows the Governor to refuse to sign a Bill that is considered to be “in any way repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution”.
2017. December 22. The first gay couple to marry on a Bermudian-registered P&O cruise ship is also set to be one of the last. British couple Victoria Marno and Siobhan Crosby are due to marry in the Caribbean next month on the cruise line’s MS Azura. But the just-passed Domestic Partnership Act will outlaw same-sex marriage not only on the island but also on any P&O ship around the world. Ms Marno told The Royal Gazette: “When we first looked into a wedding at sea, we knew that it would just be ceremonial. However, I was confident the law would change by the time the date came round, which it did. When I noticed in the newspaper that the law was possibly being changed back, we were devastated.” She added: “Thankfully, I believe our marriage will still be legal in Bermuda. It had certainly been a stressful time and especially with less than a month to go. To be told you can and then months later be told maybe you can’t is not fair. We wanted to make history for the right reasons and not just because we will be one of the very few to be married legally.” The couple said they were thrilled after Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons’s landmark ruling in May paved the way for marriage equality in Bermuda. But they started to worry when they heard that Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs, had tabled the Domestic Partnership Bill, which was designed to replace same-sex marriages with watered-down domestic partnerships. The Ministry of Home Affairs yesterday confirmed that Ms Marno and Ms Crosby’s wedding, as well as three other scheduled same-sex marriages in Bermuda, will be legal even after the domestic partnerships law comes into force. A ministry spokeswoman added that any same-sex couples who posted banns before the Bill is signed into law will also have their weddings honored. Parliament last week approved the Domestic Partnership Act, which signaled an end to marriage equality on the island. John Rankin, the Governor, however, has yet to give assent to the Bill and make it law. P&O, which had announced it would offer legal same-sex marriages on its ships for the first time, said in British gay newspaper Pink News yesterday that it was “very unhappy” over the Bermuda decision. A spokesman for the cruise line said: “We are very unhappy about this decision and we do not underestimate the disappointment this will cause those guests who have planned their weddings.” Ms Marno and Ms Crosby have appeared in an article on P&O’s website to celebrate that they would be the first gay couple to marry on one of its Bermudian-registered ships. The Ministry of Home Affairs also confirmed that marriage banns for same-sex weddings are still being accepted in the run-up to the expected law change. A spokeswoman for the ministry said: “Until the law takes effect, the Registry General is still accepting same-sex marriage applications. Application forms for domestic partnership will be available on the date the law takes effect.” But Ms Marno said: “I think it is out of order for a government to revert the law within such a short space of time. I feel as though the Bermudian government does not have the right to change the law without allowing the people of Bermuda to have a vote. I think they should have a binding referendum.”
2017. December 21. Four gay couples who are planning to marry at sea on Bermudian-registered ships will still be able to tie the knot, the Government confirmed today. Marriage banns have been posted by the Registrar-General for the unions, with two of the ceremonies due to take place this month and a further two in January. Parliament approved legislation last week to replace gay marriages with domestic partnerships, signaling an end to marriage equality on the island. But a Ministry of Home Affairs spokeswoman confirmed today that the four maritime weddings for which banns have already been posted would be able to take place. And she said the Registrar-General would still accept applications for the posting of same-sex marriage banns “until the law takes effect”. Application forms for domestic partnerships will become available on the date the law takes effect. As of yesterday, John Rankin, the Governor, had yet to give assent to the Bill to enable it to become law. A Government House spokesman: “The Governor is considering the Bill in line with his responsibilities under the Constitution.” P & O and Cunard cruise lines, both owned by Carnival Corporation & PLC and who offer weddings at sea, said they were aware of the repeal of marriage equality on the island and were “awaiting further updates regarding same-sex marriages on our ships” from the Bermuda Government. A Cunard spokeswoman said: “Once we have confirmation on the final outcome, our priority will be to update those same-sex couples who have booked marriages.” Gay couples have been able to marry in Bermuda and on ships registered on the island since a landmark Supreme Court ruling in May. A total of eight couples have taken advantage of the decision, with seven weddings at the Registry-General and one private ceremony elsewhere. British tabloid newspaper The Mail on Sunday claimed at the weekend that Mr Rankin was taking advice on requesting Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s authorization to veto the Bill. But the article quoted a Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesman, who said: “The UK Government is a proud supporter of LGBT rights and continues to support same-sex marriage. “While the UK Government is disappointed with the implications of this Bill, this is a matter for the Bermuda Government acting within the terms of the Bermuda Constitution and in accordance with international law.” The Domestic Partnership Act 2017 was approved by MPs on December 8 and by senators last Wednesday. Gay and straight couples will be able to enter into domestic partnerships but same-sex weddings will no longer be allowed once it is enacted after gaining Royal Assent. The first gay couple to wed here were Bermudian lawyer Julia Aidoo-Saltus and her partner, Judith, who spoke out against the plan to reverse the court ruling. The most recent couple was two men, one of whom was Bermudian, who tied the knot in the Registry-General’s marriage room. The tiny South Atlantic Ocean island of St Helena, also a British Overseas Territory, this week approved same-sex marriage by a parliamentary vote of 9-2.
2017. December 18. Boris Johnson, the British foreign secretary, is under pressure to veto Bermuda’s ban on same-sex marriage, a UK newspaper said yesterday. The Mail on Sunday, a conservative tabloid that sells around 1.28 million copies in Britain, added that John Rankin, the Governor, had taken “advice on requesting Mr Johnson’s authorization to veto the bill”. The newspaper also said Mr Rankin had to get approval from the foreign secretary before he could withhold consent on an Act passed by the island’s Parliament. The news came less than a week after the Senate backed the Domestic Partnership Bill, which is designed to replace same-sex marriage with a watered-down legal relationship open to both gay and straight couples. The Mail on Sunday said Mr Johnson’s position was “fraught with difficulties” and that a veto would “spark uproar and accusations of neocolonialism” in Bermuda. It added that if the Act is signed into law by Mr Rankin, Bermuda would face a backlash from a boycott of its tourism industry. A foreign office spokesman told Mail on Sunday: “The UK Government is a proud supporter of LGBT rights and continues to support same-sex marriage. While the UK Government is disappointed with the implications of this Bill, this is a matter for the Bermuda Government acting within the terms of the Bermuda Constitution and in accordance with international law.” The article, published yesterday, also quoted Chris Bryant, a former Labour government Overseas Territories Minister, who called on Mr Johnson to let Mr Rankin veto the Act. Mr Bryant said: “A British citizen, regardless of what part of Britain they’re from, should have the same rights. If approved, the law would make Bermuda the first country in the world to cancel gay marriage after previously allowing it.” Political heavyweights in the US have also hit out at the island’s removal of marriage rights. Howard Dean, a former presidential candidate, a former Governor of Vermont and one-time chairman of the Democratic Committee, tweeted on Friday: “Progressive Labour Party in Bermuda just eliminated gay marriage. Americans who really are progressives should find another vacation spot.” The tweet had nearly 1,500 re-tweets and more than 3,300 likes by yesterday afternoon. Same-sex marriage became law in England and Wales in 2013 and in Scotland, which has a devolved Parliament and its own legal system, a few months later in 2014. Same-sex marriage is not recognized in Northern Ireland after it was blocked by the hardline Democratic Unionist Party in the province’s Assembly. Civil partnerships for gay couples had become law nine years earlier and applied across the UK. Government House yesterday declined to comment on the Mail on Sunday story and referred to its statement last week that “in considering this matter, the Governor will continue to act in accordance with his responsibilities under the Constitution.”
2017. December 18. Lawyer Mark Pettingill is to consider a constitutional challenge to legislation designed to replace same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships. Mr Pettingill told The Royal Gazette that a gay couple had approached him to weigh up the potential of taking the case to court on constitutional grounds. The former Attorney-General played a major role in the island’s human rights battle over same-sex marriage when he represented Winston Godwin and his Canadian partner Greg DeRoche in the civil case that led to a Supreme Court ruling that enabled gay couples to marry in Bermuda. Mr Pettingill stressed the couple had yet to decide “if, and it’s very much if, we were to proceed”. He added: “A couple is seeking advice with regard to a challenge on the basis that their constitutional rights are being infringed by the passing of this Bill. We are in the process of considering that position. Certainly, it’s not a novel concept, where Bills have been challenged in the past, both in Bermuda and other jurisdictions. There is a lot of precedent for this. More importantly, a constitution has to be read as a living, breathing document in modern time. The fundamental rights of the individual in accordance with section one of the constitution are sacrosanct.” Mr Pettingill was a prominent critic of the Domestic Partnership Act 2017, which was approved by the Senate last week. He said it was “disheartening”, and a “watering down” of human rights. The legislation, which would offer partnerships to heterosexual as well as same-sex couples, was put out for public consultation last month by Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs. Mr Brown said the debate had been “a prolonged matter of great division”. A home affairs ministry spokeswoman said there had been 3,024 e-mail responses, including 16 received after the consultation deadline. The majority, 2,836, were “robot” e-mails from overseas, all in support of same-sex marriage. The ministry received 188 e-mails from Bermuda residents. A total of 22 of them came from “a local activist”. The spokeswoman added there were six e-mails from opponents of same-sex marriage, and four from “persons who gave specific comments about the Bill”.
2017. December 13. The first Bermudian to marry her gay partner on island has spoken out against steps to repeal same-sex marriage, declaring: “One day all will know that love is love.” Julia and Judith Aidoo-Saltus, who were married on May 31, spoke as senators prepare today to debate legislation to introduce domestic partnerships. Yesterday, the couple told The Royal Gazette in a joint statement: “Love is love. Our marriage remains lawful under the laws of Bermuda and is sacred before our friends, our families and our God.” Julia, a Bermudian lawyer, married her Ghanaian-American partner Judith after a landmark Supreme Court ruling that paved the way for same-sex marriage in Bermuda. However, last Friday, MPs voted 24-10 in favour of the Domestic Partnership Act to replace same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships. The couple pointed to a comment from late American marriage equality activist Edith Windsor, who said: “Marriage is a magic word. And it is magic throughout the world. It has to do with our dignity as human beings, to be who we are openly.” They added: “Accordingly, we will continue to pray for all those who are struggling with this basic issue of marriage as a measure of a society’s understanding of human dignity and, ultimately, respect. Fortunately, we believe in miracles and in God. One day, all will know that love is love. And it is free.” Yesterday, Kevin Dallas, chief executive of the Bermuda Tourism Authority, warned that the Bill would damage tourism and urged senators to vote against it. Bermudian Bruce Whayman married his partner, Roland Maertens, on the island in September. The couple said they were “disturbed and saddened” by Friday’s events in the House of Assembly and branded the Government’s “backward agenda” an “international embarrassment”. Mr Whayman said: “Bermuda is being run by a party that is progressive by name, but not by nature. The country has a net debt of $3.7 billion and growing daily, yet one of the first policy decisions from this government is to discriminate against a minority of its population and simultaneously discourage an untapped new market from coming to Bermuda and spending up on what would be the happiest moment of their lives. A legal marriage offers equality under the law. Equality is what this is all about. Please don’t patronize the LGBT community by offering domestic partnership agreements. They are widely unrecognized worldwide. Our last hope is that equality and common sense prevail, and the Bill will not receive the requisite signature from the Governor of Bermuda.” Meanwhile, an American man who also wed in Bermuda said repeal of same-sex marriage would create inequality within the island’s gay community. The man said he was “struggling” with the reality that should the Act become law his relationship would be classified as a marriage while other same-sex couples would have partnerships. “We will have inequality in our own section of the community,” said the man, who spoke with the Gazette on the condition of anonymity. “I find this so strange. To be one of the six or seven couples with that title doesn’t make me feel good — it makes me feel even more divided than ever.” The man and his partner were married on November 6. It was the sixth same-sex marriage performed in Bermuda. A Ministry of Home Affairs spokeswoman confirmed yesterday that one additional same-sex marriage had since been performed, with another “scheduled to take place before the end of the year”. The man said he had experienced the same debate on same-sex marriage in the United States, and that he had hoped to come to Bermuda with his husband to “live a normal life”. However, he added: “But as I visit more and more I feel like I’m going back in the closet more each day. This doesn’t represent all of Bermuda, but certain interactions I’ve had, either going to a restaurant with my husband or going through immigration and customs and mentioning that I am married to a Bermudian, doesn’t always get the warmest welcoming. Sometimes it’s easier for me to blend in like a tourist because no one looks at me differently.” He said that the couple had worked with an on-island lawyer who advised they marry as soon as possible ahead of changes “coming down the pipeline”. He said he and his partner together decided to tie the knot ahead of a possible change in law. It meant not being able to take time to plan a ceremony that included family and friends. “Marrying at the Registrar was not what either of us wanted for our special day. But it had to be done to safeguard our relationship.” He said he hoped that John Rankin, the Governor, would not sign off on the Act should it pass in the Senate. OutBermuda, a gay rights advocacy group, said it felt the consultation period on the controversial legislation had been inadequate. “Most importantly, our efforts to engage in good faith with the Ministry of Home Affairs during the consultation process should not be viewed as our approving the spirit of the domestic partnership legislation,” the group said on Facebook. The organisation said it would continue to advocate for all issues affecting Bermuda’s LGBTQ population, including marriage equality. Questions sent to representatives with Preserve Marriage and the Rainbow Alliance had not been responded to by press time.
2017. December 13. Former Progressive Labour Party senator Kim Wilkerson has criticized a Bill aimed at replacing same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships as a “step back for human rights”. Ms Wilkerson, who was instrumental last year in blocking legislation designed to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples, told The Royal Gazette she was “disappointed” and “disheartened” by the proposed law, which will be debated in the Senate today. She predicted that the PLP’s five senators would vote in favour of the legislation and that the Bill would also win the support of enough of the three independent members to ensure its safe passage through Parliament. “I don’t know how the new [PLP group in the] Senate will vote but my expectation is that they will vote in favour of it, because they are all new,” she said. “For them, it gives a set of rights, a legislated framework. They will take the view that ... that’s better than nothing at all.” Her view differed, she said, because section 53 of the Domestic Partnership Act 2017 — which says a marriage is void unless between a man and a woman — would actively remove the right of gay couples to wed, despite a Supreme Court ruling from May this year which determined that it was discriminatory to deny them marriage. “It’s just retrograde,” said Ms Wilkerson, who remains an active member of the PLP. “I was very disappointed, disheartened [when it was tabled]. I think it was a step back for human rights. I believe singularly that it must make us unique in the entire world: to have come to a place where we had marriage equality and then we take it away.” In July 2016, Ms Wilkerson helped to quash a Private Member’s Bill tabled by fellow PLP parliamentarian Wayne Furbert. The Bill, which sought to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples by amending the Human Rights Act, was approved by MPs but lost by six votes to five in the Senate, with Ms Wilkerson the only PLP senator to go against it. She said she searched her heart when deciding how to vote, ultimately deciding the “role of the legislator is to enhance and build upon the rights of citizens, not to take them away”. Ms Wilkerson said party leader Marc Bean made clear it was a vote of conscience and she was not criticized afterwards for opposing it. “There were some who said party members were unhappy with me, within the PLP caucus. But there was no backlash whatsoever. There was a clear understanding that we — that I, at least — was going to be voting on conviction. I was never challenged within the PLP caucus on that and I was grateful for that.” She said the Bill to be debated today was “very much” an attempt by the Government to strike a compromise, since so many constituents — and party members — were opposed to gay marriage. “My sense is that a majority of people within the party probably accord with the view against same-sex marriage,” said Ms Wilkerson. “Irrespective of how I feel, an overwhelming view of constituents is that they would prefer not to see same-sex marriage legal.” She suggested that independent senator James Jardine, who voted against Mr Furbert’s Bill, might be inclined to support domestic partnerships on the basis that they are a “reasonable middle ground that gives a legal framework” to gay couples. Neither Mr Jardine nor fellow independent Joan Dillas-Wright, who supported Mr Furbert’s Bill, would comment on how they plan to vote today. Michelle Simmons, the other independent senator, could not be reached for comment. Opposition Senate leader Nandi Outerbridge said it was “safe to say” the One Bermuda Alliance’s three senators would oppose the Bill. She said the party’s position was “it’s wrong to take rights away from people” and the status quo should remain. OBA senator Andrew Simons made a plea for all his colleagues in the Upper Chamber to delay the Bill for a year by voting against it, whatever their view on same-sex marriage. “This goes beyond politics,” he said. “The role of the Senate is not always to block legislation but delay it, at times. If this piece of legislation was delayed for a year, you might find that the mood of the island has changed, The need for this legislation would diminish further. People’s hearts would have softened. There would be a greater understanding.” He noted that global opinion on gay marriage — once an “impossible idea” — had changed dramatically in the past 20 years and would continue to evolve. “Equality doesn’t harm anyone, but for people who can suddenly get married it makes a huge change,” he said. If the Act is approved, it will need the assent of John Rankin, the Governor, to become law. A Government House spokeswoman said: “In considering this matter, the Governor will continue to act in accordance with his responsibilities under the Constitution.”
2017. December 13. Bermuda Tourism Authority chief executive Kevin Dallas has written to senators urging them to vote against legislation to replace same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships. Mr Dallas says the BTA is convinced that the legislation would result in “lost tourism for Bermuda” if passed. The Domestic Partnership Bill is due to be debated by senators tomorrow, after it was passed by MPs in the Lower House late on Friday night. “Since last Friday’s vote, we have seen ample evidence of negative international headlines and growing social-media hostility towards Bermuda that we feel compelled to express our concern about what the negative consequences could be for tourism if the Domestic Partnership Bill passes the Senate this week,” Mr Dallas said. “We believe the Bill poses an unnecessary threat to the success of our tourism industry. We urge you to vote no and appreciate the opportunity to lay out the reasons why. Importantly, we do not view domestic partnerships as a negative in isolation. In fact many jurisdictions permit domestic partnerships without adverse impacts on their economies. The circumstance in Bermuda is different — and troubling — in one important way: same-sex marriage is already the law of our island and to roll that back for what will be seen as a less equal union will cause us serious reputational damage. We are convinced it will result in lost tourism business for Bermuda.” In the letter to senators, Mr Dallas highlights two examples of states in the United States — North Carolina and Indiana — that have suffered a tourism decline after legislation that impinged on the rights of the LGBT community. He states that the LGBT community contributes $165 billion worldwide per year, of which $65 billion is spent in the US. Mr Dallas writes: “The Bermuda tourism economy, and the workers and businesses who make it thrive, deserve their fair share of the LGBT market, as we all continue the uphill climb towards tourism resurgence. Significantly, it is not only LGBT travelers that care about equal rights based on sexual orientation. Our research indicates many companies, consumers and travelers, including the overwhelming majority of the younger visitors powering Bermuda’s growth, care about this issue.” He told senators: “While it’s not possible to project the precise ramifications of a yes vote for Bermuda, we are confident the impact will be negative,” Mr Dallas said. “The ominous headlines since last Friday signal the hazards ahead. The yet-to-be-written headlines associated with a yes vote in the Senate could be damaging enough to derail the seven consecutive quarters of growth the Bermuda tourism industry has enjoyed dating back to January 2016. Tourism workers are getting more hours on the job, visitors are spending more of their money on-island and entrepreneurs are flocking to the tourism economy because they sense a bright future of sustained growth. Let’s not jeopardize that growth. We should send a message that Bermuda continually and permanently lives up to its well-earned reputation as a warm, friendly and welcoming destination. A no vote on the Domestic Partnerships Bill will make that message crystal-clear to the world.”
2017. December 12. The removal of the right to same-sex marriage highlights a massive generation gap in Bermuda, young island commentators said yesterday. Dwayne Robinson, of online current affairs show It’s That Type of Party, said the Domestic Partnership Act “very clearly” highlighted the age divide on the issue. He said: “The older generation holds tight to their faith and religious beliefs. The older generation embodies ‘Bermuda is another world’ and they will fight to protect that. Younger folks are much less traditional and have been exposed to a collective, progressive mindset that most millennials tend to share.” Trae Cannonier, Mr Robinson’s co-presenter on ITTP, agreed. He said: “Most of us were raised in some form of religious household — however, as we’ve grown our mindsets have changed. I’m not going to say that our generation is more open-minded but I would say we have instant access to significantly more information than our parents did.” Mr Cannonier’s father, One Bermuda Alliance MP Craig Cannonier, voted for the new Act. But Trae Cannonier said he and his father had always separated their political viewpoints from their personal relationship. He added: “He very much respects my opinions and admires my ability to think for myself as that’s what he raised me to do. We disagree a lot but are still able to do so respectfully and we still remain as close as ever.” Mr Robinson said that the duo was disappointed by the new Act but not surprised. He added: “We know that Bermudians like to stay in their bubble and for the status quo to remain the same. That’s one of the main reasons our youth are running out of this country the first chance they get.” Mr Robinson predicted the watered-down option for gay couples would “stain” Bermuda’s reputation overseas. He said: “We feel that the repercussions will be felt a bit further down the line when the word begins to spread. The PLP may find itself in a similar position of the previous government with an unsatisfied group of citizens knocking on their door.” Mr Robinson said ITTP would back any non-violent bid for marriage equality. He added: “The next step is for us to join in with other advocates and continue to try and make a change. We don’t want this to turn into a clash of conflicting mentalities but into a chance to gain mutual understanding.” Civil rights group the Centre for Justice also said the change in the law was not a surprise — but it was still disappointed that Government “chose to roll back full marital equality”. The comments came after MPs on Friday voted 24-10 in favour of the Bill to replace same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships. But the Centre for Justice said it was “encouraged” by an amendment that gave recognition to all same-sex marriages celebrated outside of Bermuda. The organisation also said it was encouraged by the “change of tone” in many speeches made by MPs during the debate in the House of Assembly. The Centre for Justice added: “Several MPs acknowledged that this issue highlights a generational gap and philosophical difference between parents and their young adult children whose worldwide view in more inclusive and progressive.” Justin Mathias, chairman of the Future Bermuda Alliance, the youth wing of the OBA, said the legislation was a “sad day” for Bermuda. Mr Mathias added: “For us to be this close to being the first country to renege on same-sex marriage is baffling. There is a huge generational gap with many issues in our country, but on this single issue I believe it is at its greatest. The younger generations are far more progressive and believe that everyone within our community should have equal rights under the law. The majority of FBA members backed same-sex marriage. The one thing we unanimously agree on is that it isn’t right to take away rights that have already been given to people within our community. We are in a new age and the world is changing.” Eron Hill, of youth group Generation Next, did not respond to requests for comment.
2017. December 11. Royal Gazette Editorial. "On occasion when planning a newspaper, editors face a quandary in making the decision over which of two viable candidates should be the lead story — or “the splash”. Such was the case on Friday in anticipation of the much awaited parliamentary debates to do with the Casino Gaming Amendment Act and the Domestic Partnership Act — both with laudable claims and both which command a huge public interest, casino gaming and same-sex marriage having captivated national attention pre and post-Election 17. The decision fell on which in a worst-case scenario would have the more far-reaching effects for the country should there be adverse ramifications. For what the implications might be should the Government’s plans to exert ministerial control over the Bermuda Casino Gaming Commission turn pear-shaped, it meant that story had to take priority. Just. However, one debate took barely an hour and a half, while the other lasted for 4½ hours — and in doing so showed our elected officials at their collective worst. It is no wonder that the One Bermuda Alliance, despite having drafted the initial Civil Unions Bill, and the Progressive Labour Party as the Opposition had their hands forced by Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons in May — left to their own devices in the Lower House, which in this instance is befitting of the name, they were woefully ill-equipped to appreciate the hardship felt by the LGBTQ community. The discomfort seen on some faces was demonstrable, as though they wished they could be at any place where they were not required to talk in depth about this particular topic, trying to make sense of their support or lack thereof for the Bill brought by Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs. The speakers veered from inspirational (Walter Roban), to combative (Patricia Gordon-Pamplin) and impassioned (Jeff Baron), to sermonical (Scott Simmons) to clueless (Neville Tyrrell) and downright offensive (Derrick Burgess). Some didn’t speak, most notably the leader of the country and his predecessor, and that approach in hindsight should have been the preferred route by many to spare those in the public gallery and the listening public the agony of grown men and women stumbling over themselves, struggling to get words out in a coherent manner so as to make them remotely believable. How does it go? “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.” One by one they got up, armed with the privilege of having a half-hour to torment us, and torment us they did. Gordon-Pamplin was strong and later showed pit bull tendencies in refusing to let go after a show of names ushered the Bill through. But by then she had already elicited something akin to an apocalyptic wish for the adult population of this generation. Pushed back by the Deputy Speaker, her “you will die” refrain to reflect that today’s older views will be improved on by the next generation was downgraded to “expire” before being withdrawn altogether. Not the former Opposition leader at her finest. Baron, in recalling Hans Christian Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Clothes, first needed a dressing-down from the Deputy Speaker for auditioning for the gallery before settling into his work. We could have done without being brought up to speed on Lawrence Scott’s sexual conquests, such was the casual approach taken to some of this rather serious debate, while Leah Scott reminding that she is against same-sex marriage but is also against the stripping-away of rights presented one of the greatest contradictions of the night. Then came Walter Roban, and for the first time you were left with the belief that if David Burt ever does get to go on that “New York trip that never happened” and is trapped in a parallel universe while being fitted for emperor’s clothing, we would have an able deputy to carry the day. As far as quitting while you are ahead is concerned, all talking should have stopped once the impressively measured and articulate Roban concluded that evolution will lead to same-sex marriage being broadly accepted and legalized in Bermuda. It is just that we are not there yet. His was the only speech worthy of a standing ovation — some of what followed made you want to stand and rush for the exit. Given the PLP’s decided advantage in the House, and with an element of this projected in its election platform, we knew this Bill was going to pass, come what may. So why subject us to the additional speeches beyond the prescribed minimum? And so they continued. And so we were forced to suffer as reasonably bright and electable individuals shrunk before our eyes — forced to speak on a subject they know little of and have inquired even less about. No one was more uncomfortable than Neville Tyrrell. And it was a pity he had no colleague to his immediate left or right to rescue him from himself as he waffled on for what seemed an eternity without adequately making a clear point or offering a position on same-sex marriage. The only truism to be taken from his 20 torturous minutes was the identifying of the Editor of The Royal Gazette in the audience and that we will report on the proceedings, which while accurate was as relevant to his address as Juanae Crockwell, sister of the late Shawn Crockwell, being sat not far away — nothing more than stalling tactics while trying to arrive at the right words. They never came. A good and principled man, this was not the Warwick South Central MP in his finest hour, and his party colleagues would be best advised not to leave him high and dry as a public speaker on this most complex of subjects. Advanced in years but inexperienced in the House, Tyrrell was not the only respected parliamentarian who could do with a do-over. Grant Gibbons, so often the most august and respected of speakers, allowed himself to get flustered with an untypical “whatever” when corrected over the LGBTQ acronym. It was at that point for those of a same-sex marriage persuasion that you could not be faulted for thinking: “With friends like these, who needs enemies?” But taking the biscuit, and claiming the “what was that about?” award was Michael Scott, he of the dulcet tones who for all of half an hour elucidated — to borrow a phrase from Trevor Moniz — how he would go against the Bill. But then when names were called, he fell into line with his party. At least with Burgess, you know what you’re going to get: guns blazing and talk of racism and social inequity ... deflection. But the Hamilton East MP’s crude analogy of children walking in on their two fathers “getting busy” in the bedroom has no place in the House of Assembly — as though children walking in on mommy and daddy is any more appropriate. Well versed in parliamentary procedure, Burgess is far better suited to the Speaker’s chair than he is to matters that warrant empathy married to humanitarianism. No pun intended. So we have a Domestic Partnership Act whose genesis could be found in the Bermuda Bred case when Chief Justice Ian Kawaley advised the legislature that something needed to be done to provide amenable rights to same-sex couples. The legislature did nothing, expensively in the case of the non-binding and ultimately invalid referendum, putting Justice Simmons in an invidious position when Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche challenged the Registrar-General to have their marriage banns posted. Not including theirs, six marriages have taken place since that ruling, and the rub now for the LGBTQ community is that Brown’s Act removes those rights. Enshrined into law, any immediate legal challenge is likely to fail, but Roban is right. As the European Court of Human Rights comes under increasing pressure to acknowledge same-sex marriage and have provisions placed in the convention, so, too, will Bermuda get swept up in the revolution of evolution. Unless the PLP wishes to test the waters of independence, where it will find that the country’s appetite for breaking away from Britain is even less than it is for embracing same-sex marriage, natural justice means that full marriage equality is on its way. And quite contrary to the motivation behind Gordon-Pamplin’s “you will die” outburst, that justice will be all the sweeter if many of the foot-in-mouth types are alive to see it."
2017. December 9. Legislation to replace same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships was passed in the House of Assembly last night. The Domestic Partnership Act 2017 was passed following a five-hour debate after a vote in which 24 MPs supported the Bill being reported to the House, while ten opposed it. Home affairs minister Walton Brown, who introduced the Bill, said it would provide same-sex couples with a raft of legal rights but prevent any further same-sex marriages. He also confirmed that the legislation would not have retroactive affect on same-sex marriages after the Supreme Court ruling in the Godwin and DeRoche case against the Registrar-General. In that case, Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons ruled that the Registrar-General could not reject a gay couple’s application to marry in Bermuda and that the common law definition of marriage as between a man and a woman was “inconsistent with the provisions of the Human Rights Act as they constitute deliberate different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation”. During yesterday’s debate, PLP backbencher Lawrence Scott said the Bill brought balance and gave “the LGBTQ community the benefits it has been asking for”, while keeping the “the traditional definition of marriage”. He said: “As it stands now, they can have the name marriage but without the benefits. But after this Bill passes, they have the benefits and just not the name marriage. The benefits are what they really want.” However, shadow home affairs minister Patricia Gordon-Pamplin said she could not support the Bill “having given a community something only to take it away”. She added: “I don’t like to accept that it is OK for us to treat our sisters and brothers differently, whether fair or unfair, to treat them differently under similar circumstances.” Leah Scott, the deputy leader of the One Bermuda Alliance, also said she could not support the Bill because it took away a right that already existed. However, PLP backbencher Wayne Furbert said he supported the Bill even though it was not everything he wanted. He added: “I support it because at the end of the day it removes the right to same-sex marriage and it tells the court that this Parliament will stand for what is right.” However, Jeff Baron, the Shadow Minister of National Security, said it was a “very flawed and, frankly, shameful Bill”. Instead of protecting equality, he said, it was “stripping Bermuda’s reputation naked for the world to see”. Walter Roban, the Deputy Premier, supported the Bill and said it came from of a “desire to bring some sort of stability on how the country will manage itself around this issue”. But the Minister of Transport said: “This is an issue in progress. It is going to be shaped and moulded by us and it is going to be shaped and moulded by the generations to come. So do not believe what we decide here is final.” Craig Cannonier described the Bill as “lukewarm” and said: “It’s half and half. It’s a compromise Bill. I would prefer it if you were hot or cold.” PLP backbencher Michael Scott acknowledged that the Act was a “compromise” but added that his conscience did not allow him to support the Bill because “if falls short”. He added: “I will not rob same sex couples of that opportunity. I have seen same sex couples raise children with great success. Every citizen must be allowed the liberty to freely choose. Shadow legal affairs minister Trevor Moniz described the Bill as a “retrograde action”. He said: “To take that right away from them is something that is abhorrent to me.” PLP backbencher Neville Tyrrell threw his weight behind the Bill. He said: “A lot of people are saying this is a compromise, I don’t think it is. It’s a middle road. Nobody is really going to win.” PLP MP Scott Simmons described the Bill as imperfect but said: “This Government has decided to address this issue that no one else wanted to deal with. We said we would repeal and replace but we cannot satisfy everyone. It’s not perfect. But we have to go with what we have got.” Sylvan Richards, the shadow minister of planning, said he would support the Government’s Bill, which he described as a “halfway house” that achieves what needs to be achieved at this time. “It’s going to give individuals the rights they need and it’s going to keep marriage between a man and a woman, which was my goal. Then it’s going to be the future generations that will take it to the next step.” However, shadow education minister Cole Simons would not support the Bill. He said: “This country has to evolve like other countries.” Meanwhile, PLP MP Derrick Burgess said he would back the Bill, which “is not all I wanted, but this is what we promised. This is the best solution. I support this Bill and believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.” Grant Gibbons, the shadow economic development minister, confirmed he would not be supporting the “regressive” Bill. He said: “This is a human rights issue. We are taking away marriage equality rights from the LGBTQ community.” Opposition leader Jeanne Atherden added: “We are taking away rights that have been granted to communities of individuals who want to start families.” Mr Brown concluded: “We need to find a way in Bermuda to fully embrace greater rights for all members of the community. But the status quo will not stand. On the ground, the political reality is that if we do not lead we would have a Private Members Bill tabled to outlaw same-sex marriage. That Bill would pass because more than 18 MPs are opposed to same sex marriage. If that Bill passes same sex couples have no rights whatsoever. This is tough for me. But I don’t shy away from tough decisions.” Jeanne Atherden, Jeff Baron, Michael Dunkley, Grant Gibbons, Patricia Gordon-Pamplin, Susan Jackson, Trevor Moniz, Leah Scott, Cole Simons and Ben Smith opposed the Bill being reported to the House.
2017. December 8. The number of marriages in Bermuda in 2016 fell to 450 from 509 in 2015 — an 11.6 per cent drop. Walton Brown, Minister of Home Affairs, said marriages between people who were both non-Bermuda residents accounted for 231 — 51.3 per cent — of the 450 marriages performed. Mr Brown said: “This figure still is in keeping with the trend over the past five years for marriages between non-residents to exceed the number of marriages between residents and marriages between a resident party and a non-resident party.” Four hundred and sixty-eight marriages were performed aboard 28 Bermuda-registered ships last year — a decrease of 97 or 17.2 per cent on the 565 performed in 2015.
2017. December 7. A Bill designed to replace same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships is set to be approved without amendment by MPs tomorrow, despite criticism from across the community. Groups on both sides of the divide called for the Domestic Partnership Act 2017 to be altered before it becomes law, but sources told The Royal Gazette yesterday that it was not likely to be changed. It is understood that the vote tomorrow will be one of conscience for the Progressive Labour Party’s 24 MPs — the Speaker of the House would be required to vote only in the event of a tie — as opposed to a vote along party lines. But two government backbenchers told The Royal Gazette that no PLP representatives were likely to oppose the Bill. One predicted that home affairs minister Walton Brown, who tabled the legislation on November 24 after a two-week public consultation period, would “prevail”. Another said the legislation would pass because there was “no dissension within the ranks”. Preserve Marriage, a group opposed to gay marriage and civil unions, asked on Tuesday for the Bill to be widened in scope to allow people not in an “intimate relationship” with one another to get legal benefits of domestic partnership such as next of kin and inheritance rights. The Centre for Justice, meanwhile, urged the Government to withdraw a section of the bill giving primacy over the Human Rights Act to a clause in the Matrimonial Causes Act which makes marriages void unless between a man and a woman. The civil liberties organisation said the section would “roll back ... those rights” conferred to same-sex couples by the landmark Supreme Court judgment in May this year which paved the way for gay marriages. The Human Rights Commission and the Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda have also criticized the Bill. They said it was a “removal of rights” for gay couples. Preserve Marriage president Melvyn Bassett said yesterday that he believed the Bill would pass in its present form whether MPs were allowed to vote with their conscience or under orders from the party whip. Dr Bassett said he liked to think there would be a PLP MP with a strong enough view against same-sex marriage to propose the amendment requested by Preserve Marriage. But he added he was not hopeful and predicted that even junior finance minister Wayne Furbert, the party’s most vocal opponent of gay marriage and civil unions, will vote in favour of the Bill. Dr Bassett said: “He fears that if anything is added there might be some argument over the amendment. So he and others are saying ‘let’s make sure this thing passes’.” Dr Bassett said Preserve Marriage viewed the Domestic Partnership Act as creating a union “almost identical to marriage” and that was unacceptable. He said a better solution would be to create an entirely different kind of legal partnership, available to everyone, whether or not they were in an “intimate relationship”. Dr Bassett added removal of the “intimacy” aspect of the Bill would make the law less likely to be challenged in court. He said: “Preserve Marriage agrees that under the European Convention, the Government is required to acknowledge same-sex couples by providing them with legal rights but those rights are very similar to what others could benefit from. Two sisters, for example, could choose to enter into a partnership for legal reasons if they wanted to own property together. If there is a parallel to marriage, it will open government up to legal challenges. We are suggesting they could eliminate the legal challenge. We don’t want to fight in court on a parallel Act. It would seal it, I think.” Lawyer Rod Attride-Stirling, who represented the HRC in the civil proceedings that led to the judgment on same-sex marriage, said MPs should think long and hard before approving the Domestic Partnership Act. Mr Attride-Stirling said: “There is lawful same-sex marriage in Bermuda and there have been several marriages now, so the Government is taking away a right that exists. If the Supreme Court had not already ruled on this, then the position would be very different. In that instance, the previous government’s civil unions Bill would have been seen as giving something, where there was nothing. However, what is happening now is that the Government is giving something that’s secondary, the right to a domestic partnership, and taking away something primary, the right to marriage.” Mr Attride-Stirling added: “The fact that no country in the world has ever done this should give us pause. We will look foolish and oppressive, at a time when we can ill-afford this, in the light of everything going on and the spotlight shining on us for other reasons.” He said the May judgment declared all same-sex marriages involving Bermudians were lawful, whether here or overseas, if they took place after the Human Rights Act was amended in 2013 to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Mr Attride-Stirling said: “There are a bunch of marriages that have taken place here since the judgment. But there is a much larger number of marriages that have taken place overseas since 2013. Those earlier marriages were effectively declared to be lawful by the judgment and this Bill does not recognize that. It protects those marriages that took place after the judgment but it does not protect the earlier marriages that took place overseas. That’s a serious technical problem as it is rendering lawful marriages unlawful, that is, taking away crystallized rights, which would be unconstitutional." Deputy Opposition leader Leah Scott said the One Bermuda Alliance opposed the Bill and that its 12 MPs would vote against it on party lines. She said: “It won’t be a conscience vote.” David Burt, the Premier, told The Royal Gazette in July that his opposition to civil unions had “not changed”. He told Bermudian students in London last week: “We are making sure we carry out our platform promise that same-sex couples and heterosexual couples have similar legal protection under the law.”
2017. December 6. An attempt to introduce domestic partnerships for gay couples is marriage by another name, pressure group Preserve Marriage said last night. The organisation claimed that Minister of Home Affairs Walton Brown’s Bill to create legal recognition for same-sex couples would open the door to full marriage in the future. Melvyn Bassett, chairman of Preserve Marriage, said: “To legislate against same-sex marriage and simultaneously introduce civil unions under the guise of a Domestic Partnership Bill is an introduction of a parallel form of marriage.” He claimed: “The public is well aware that civil unions often give legal footing to the ‘separate but equal’ argument that has led to same-sex marriage rulings in the court in other jurisdictions.” Dr Bassett said: “To avoid a future legal challenge to Minister Walton Brown’s 2017 Domestic Partnership Bill, an appropriate amendment could be made that would offer a provision of legal recognition and benefits to all non-married persons and can be applied to a variety of relationships. “Such an amendment would grant legal authority and rights to a designated person or registrant which would include, but not require, an intimate relationship.” Dr Bassett added: “The legislation under these circumstances would not be seen as parallel to the Marriage Act and would less likely be used as a basis to appeal to the courts for same-sex marriage.” The group added that it was “pleased” that the Government was “moving forward with its commitment to uphold marriage as the union between a man and a woman”. But Dr Bassett accused the ruling Progressive Labour Party of stealing the former One Bermuda Alliance government’s “rejected Civil Unions Bill” of last year and giving it a new title. He claimed that the PLP had “campaigned on a platform to eliminate same-sex marriage”. Dr Bassett added that it was “perplexing why the Government ... is now introducing same-sex marriage in a different format”. Preserve Marriage conceded that by international human rights law, the Government “was obliged to provide same-sex couples with legal benefits”. Dr Bassett said: “The Government can legislate these benefits and still maintain its election promise by amending the current Bill.” The Supreme Court ruled in May that the island’s Registrar General could not reject a gay couple’s application to marry in Bermuda. Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons said that the common law definition of marriage as between a man and a woman was “inconsistent with the provisions of the Human Rights Act as they constitute deliberate different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation”. The decision paved the way for same-sex marriage on the island. The first same-sex couple made their vows at the Registry General’s office less than a month later.
2017. November 25. Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs, shrugged off criticism yesterday as he tabled a Bill to give gay couples a watered-down option of “domestic partnerships” instead of marriage. Mr Brown, who said the Domestic Partnerships Bill would be debated by MPs on December 8, responded to accusations that the consultation process to discuss it was too short. He insisted that the three-week consultation period was “adequate” and revealed that the ministry had received more than 3,000 e-mails. Mr Brown was speaking after the Human Rights Commission on Monday said the issue should have been given “a longer consultation period to allow for comprehensive analysis and feedback”. Mr Brown maintained that changes had been made to the draft Act as a result of the consultation process. He told The Royal Gazette: “There are changes in the wording that have been made after the consultation process. For example, the word ‘celebrant’ has been replaced by domestic partnership officer. There have also been some technical changes, while the Act now also identifies the date from which overseas marriages will be recognized, which has implications going forward.” Mr Brown said the Act was designed to extend a range of legal benefits to same-sex couples, “in fact more so than they have under current legislation. We are at this point legislatively because we have a rift in our community between two competing positions — one is in support of same-sex marriage, the other is fundamentally opposed to it and they view marriage between a man and a woman. The immediate political consequence is that there was a very real likelihood that a Private Member’s Bill would have been tabled in Parliament which would have outlawed same-sex marriage and afforded no rights whatsoever to same-sex couples. The majority of MPs would have supported that Bill and we would have been in a position that was fundamentally contrary to what is currently in place.” Mr Brown said that the Government had taken “leadership” to ensure that same-sex couples had their legal rights protected. He added: “What we have before us today represents a series of amendments to the proposed legislation as a result of a consultative process. We believe this is the ideal way forward at this time and we hope that the Bermuda public will at some point come to fully understand and appreciate the steps which this government has taken.” He added: “What this Bill does is address the silences in the current legal framework.”
2017. November 20. A human rights watchdog is warning that the passage of the Domestic Partnership Act will remove rights from same-sex couples and potentially make their unions unrecognizable overseas. In a statement released this morning, the Human Rights Commission said that while the proposed Act makes a “sincere effort” to recognize same-sex unions, it was disappointed that the Act was introduced after case law had already legalized same-sex marriage. It added: “This means that the proposed legislation is a de facto removal of rights from same-sex couples by relegating their unions to a separate category which may not be recognized abroad. This is particularly important given the extent to which Bermudians travel abroad for vacation and for medical reasons. Moreover, a key part of our tourism product as a wedding destination would be undermined by the proposed change.” The organisation called for a longer consultation period on “controversial issues” for “comprehensive analysis and feedback from the public and other stakeholders”. Public debates, the HRC said, should be held at neutral venues — such as schools and government buildings — rather than at religious institutions where people might feel intimidated. The organisation added that it was “unhappy with the political reality in Bermuda where such a proposal is necessary to avoid rights being stripped away completely by legislation such as the Human Rights Amendment Act proposed by Junior Minister of Finance Wayne Furbert”. The Commission said that it recognized “many” in the community were “strongly against” same-sex marriage, in some cases due to religious and moral beliefs. It added: “We also recognize that there are sectors of our religious community that are supportive of same-sex marriage and the public debate has been caricatured to ignore this fact. Everyone has a right to hold beliefs opposing same-sex marriage so long as they do not incite harm or promote hate through their speech or actions. However, individuals have a right to be treated equally and be protected from discrimination regardless of how unpopular such rights are and how small the number of people who hold those rights may be.” The Act, the HRC said, offered the ability for heterosexual and same-sex couples to form legal partnerships which would “afford them most of the rights afforded to traditional marriages”. However, there are significant differences, the HRC said. For example, under the Domestic Partnership Act, only people 18 years and older can enter into a domestic partnership, whereas under the Matrimonial Causes Act, people between 16 and 18 years old can marry with parental consent. As well, under the Domestic Partnership Act, no ability is provided to dissolve a union based on the adultery of a partner, unlike under the Matrimonial Causes Act where adultery is grounds for divorce. The HRC said it had also raised “less material issues” with Walton Brown, Minister of Home Affairs. Mr Brown unveiled the proposed legislation earlier this month. The draft Bill came six months after a Supreme Court ruling paved the way for same-sex couples to marry in Bermuda. There have been six same-sex marriages to date in Bermuda. Seven banns have been posted, and a maritime same-sex marriage is pending. The HRC said while it applauded Mr Brown’s “intentions and genuine effort to provide protection for and recognition of same-sex unions” it was “dismayed by the fact that he feels motivated to do so under perceived threat by other members of the House who wish to remove already established rights”. The HRC added: “The world is watching. If we are truly to embrace the progressive mantle, we must protect everyone from discrimination and inequality.”
2017. November 3. New legislation that would replace same-sex marriage with a domestic partnership arrangement has been unveiled by the Bermuda Government. Yesterday, in a statement, Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs, said he was seeking the public’s feedback on the draft Domestic Partnership Bill. “This topic has been a prolonged matter of great division in our country,” Mr Brown said. “The purpose of this public consultation period is to gain feedback from the public on the current draft Bill regarding domestic partnerships and answer any questions that anyone might have. Stakeholder groups have already been informed as we seek to move forward in a collaborative way.” The government statement added: “The Bill will essentially replace same-sex marriage with a domestic partnership arrangement which can be entered into by both same-sex and heterosexual couples. It should be noted that all same-sex couples who are already married will not have this designation taken away from them.” The new Progressive Labour Party draft Bill comes six months after a Supreme Court ruling paved the way for same-sex couples to marry in Bermuda. Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, embarked on their fight for equal rights after the Registrar-General rejected their application to marry. The couple were represented in court by lawyer Mark Pettingill who last night said: “Clearly an existing right could not be removed but there are other issues of law that will need to be sensibly considered.” Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche argued that the Human Rights Act took primacy in protecting their right to marry and won a landmark legal ruling in May. Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons said: “The common law definition of marriage, that marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, and its reflection in the Marriage Act section 24 and the Matrimonial Causes Act section 15 (c) are inconsistent with the provisions of the Human Rights Act as they constitute deliberate different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. On the facts of this case the applicants were discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation when the Registrar refused to process their notice of intended marriage. Same-sex couples denied access to marriage laws and entry into the institution of marriage have been denied what the Human Rights Commission terms a “basket of goods”, that is rights of a spouse contained in numerous enactments of Parliament.” The PLP’s election platform stated that the party accepted that same-sex couples should have similar legal benefits as heterosexual couples, save for marriage, and that the party would introduce legislation to achieve this aim. In August Mr Brown reiterated the PLP’s stance on the issue. “Our position is that same-sex couples should have all the legal rights of heterosexual couples, save for marriage,” Mr Brown said. The draft Bill will be posted on the Government website gov.bm for the public to view as well as on the Government’s Facebook Page Members of the public can send comments and questions to firstname.lastname@example.org There will be a two week public consultation period, which began yesterday and will end on November 15. The ministry will host two town hall meetings on the Bill. The first will take place on November 8 at 5.30pm at the BIU Building; and the other on November 9 at 5.30pm at the St Paul AME Church Hall.
2017. October 21. Junior Minister of Finance Wayne Furbert has refused to say when he will retable his Parliamentary Bill to outlaw same-sex marriage. It is the second time Mr Furbert has dodged questions on the status of his Private Member’s Bill. Mr Furbert said shortly after the Progressive Labour Party election win in July that he planned to retable the Bill in September — and expected it to pass. But the proposed legislation, which Mr Furbert said was a contributing factor in the PLP election landslide, has still to be tabled in the House of Assembly. The same Bill was passed by MPs last year, but blocked in Senate. If it passed in its current form, it would not need the approval of the upper house to become law. But The Royal Gazette reported in September that due to a constitutional technicality, senators might be able to again turn down the bill in the Senate. Section 38 (2) of the Bermuda Constitution allows Bills passed by the House of Assembly in “two successive sessions” to be presented to the Governor for assent, even if rejected by the Senate in each of those sessions. But lawyer and former Attorney-General Mark Pettingill said at the time: “The Constitution refers to two successive sessions of the House. I think on any reading of it, it is arguable that this is the third successive session.” Mr Furbert was given the position of Junior Minister of Finance earlier this month — replacing Vance Campbell. Mr Furbert had no portfolio until David Burt, the Premier, made the switch.
2017. September 28. The Government has been ordered to pay costs to the couple who won the right for gay people to marry in Bermuda. Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons ruled that all of Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche’s legal costs should be paid in relation to their claim that they were discriminated against under the Human Rights Act when the Registrar-General refused to post their wedding banns. The charity Preserve Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage and was an intervener on the side of the Government in the civil proceedings, will not have to pay costs. Mrs Justice Simmons said the group had a “genuine interest in the case, they were invited to intervene, and the case involved quasi-constitutional issues regarding fundamental rights”. She added: “In all the circumstances, it seems to me that this is an appropriate case where costs should not be awarded against PMBL.” The Human Rights Commission, an intervener on the side of the successful plaintiffs, did not win costs from the Government on the basis that it is funded from the public purse so any cost order would “achieve no more than a paper trail of accounting procedures”. Mark Pettingill, who represented Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche, told The Royal Gazette: “Obviously, I am not surprised that we were awarded costs. I do find it disappointing that Preserve Marriage, which was well funded, effectively got off the hook, but given their status as an intervener I am certainly not shocked.” Preserve Marriage has applied to appeal Mrs Justice Simmons’s landmark May 5 ruling in favor of Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche, as has a separate group led by former politician Maxwell Burgess. Mr Pettingill said: “I do not think it will be as easy for them to avoid security for costs should they endeavor to move forward with some form of appeal.” The latest ruling from the judge included the final wording of an order she was asked by the plaintiffs to make regarding the rights of gay couples to wed. In her initial judgment, Mrs Justice Simmons made a draft order declaring certain sections of the Marriage Act 1944 inoperative where it referred to “man” and “wife” and marriage as being between “one man and one woman”, as well as a section of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974, which declared marriage void unless the “parties are not respectively male and female”. She proposed “reformulating” the Marriage Act to reflect the fact that same-sex couples were entitled to be married under that piece of legislation. The judge’s final order does not suggest rewording the law. Mrs Justice Simmons said in her September 22 ruling: “It is sufficient, in my view, and entirely consistent with my written judgment, as well as section 29 of the Human Rights Act, to simply make an order declaring the offending provisions of law to be inoperative and to provide the reason for it without any attempt on my part to reformulate the provisions.” Lawyer Grant Spurling, who represented the plaintiffs alongside Mr Pettingill, said the latest judgment did not change at all the “practical application” of the initial ruling and gay couples would still be able to tie the knot. The Government, Preserve Marriage and the Human Rights Commission did not respond to requests for comment by press time last night.
2017. September 28. Cabinet minister Kim Wilson is representing same-sex marriage opponents in their bid to overturn a landmark ruling which allowed gay couples to marry in Bermuda. Ms Wilson, the full-time Minister of Health, is the attorney of record for a group which filed notice of appeal on June 15 against the Supreme Court judgment. She is representing the petitioners in her private capacity as a lawyer at Wilson & Co law firm. Ms Wilson said last night that her “involvement to date simply involved the filing of a Notice of Change of Attorney”. A Ministry of Health spokeswoman told this newspaper: “Any possible involvement in the case would not be as Minister of Health, therefore the Government is not able to comment.” E-mailed questions sent yesterday to David Burt, the Premier, about whether there was the potential for a conflict of interest went unanswered by press time. The civil case which paved the way for same-sex marriages on the island was brought against the Government of Bermuda by gay couple Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche, who claimed the Registrar-General discriminated against them by refusing to post their wedding banns. The Government lost the case, with Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons ruling on May 5 this year that denying same-sex couples the service of marriage was a breach of their human rights. A number of gay couples have since married here. The Government opted not to appeal the ruling but Preserve Marriage, a charity which opposes same-sex marriage and was an intervener in the court proceedings, is attempting to do so. A separate group led by former politician Maxwell Burgess, which supports Preserve Marriage’s aims, is also seeking to appeal the ruling. The notice of appeal for that group — described as the “second appellants” — was filed by lawyer Rick Woolridge, of Phoenix Law Chambers. The notice said marriage was defined in common law as being between a man and a woman and the judgment offended the beliefs of those who upheld that definition. It said the “cultural shift caused by the judgment was so offensive to the culture and custom of the significant proportion of the community” who voted against same-sex marriage in last year’s referendum and would erode the “custom of the island”. Ms Wilson filed her notice to replace Mr Woolridge as lawyer for the second appellants on July 7, before the General Election. Last year, she voted in favor of her Progressive Labour Party colleague Wayne Furbert’s failed parliamentary bid to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. It is understood that leave to appeal has yet to be granted to the petitioners.
2017. September 15. Senators may get the chance to make or break Wayne Furbert’s Bill to reverse the legalization of gay marriage, according to lawyers interested in the draft law. Mark Pettingill and Rod Attride-Stirling, who argued the case that led to same-sex marriage becoming legal, told The Royal Gazette it was not certain the Bill could be presented to the Governor for assent without the approval of Senate. A constitutional technicality may mean it has to get permission from the island’s 11 senators, according to Mr Pettingill, while Mr Attride-Stirling said any amendments to the original Bill would also require it to go back before Senate. Mr Pettingill said it would be a conscience vote for the five Progressive Labour Party and three One Bermuda Alliance senators, while the three independents would “have to look honestly at the human rights law”. He added: “It’s not a shoo-in. It’s not a PLP Bill.” Mr Furbert’s Private Members’ Bill was first passed in the House of Assembly in July last year, but was rejected in Senate by six votes to five. It was retabled in the next session of Parliament, but was not debated by MPs before Parliament was dissolved three months ago. Section 38 (2) of the Bermuda Constitution allows Bills passed by the House of Assembly in “two successive sessions” to be presented to the Governor for assent, even if rejected by the Senate in each of those sessions. But Mr Pettingill claimed government backbencher Mr Furbert could no longer benefit from that constitutional clause. The former attorney-general said: “The Constitution refers to two successive sessions of the House. I think on any reading of it, it is arguable that this is the third successive session. The Bill originally passed on July 8, 2016, so that would be the first session in which it was laid. The second session, therefore, would be the session which ended in June this year. The current session would be the third. The Bill is bound to go back to the Senate. From the time he first laid the Bill, we are now into the third successive session.” The former OBA politician added: “Were the Speaker to not really look very carefully at that, that might be subject to a constitutional challenge. The issue could be raised that the procedure in Parliament, in not sending the Bill to the Senate, was unconstitutional.” Separate to that is the issue of whether Mr Furbert will retable the exact same Bill that was given the green light by MPs. The legislation, the Human Rights Amendment Act 2016, was to amend the Human Rights Act 1981 “to preserve the institution of marriage” by restricting it to opposite-sex couples. Mr Attride-Stirling said Section 38 (2) of the Constitution, which does away with the need for Senate approval, would apply only to an identical Bill. He explained: “Under the Constitution, if any amendments are made, they will have to go through the whole process again.” Since Mr Furbert’s Bill was approved by MPs, a number of gay couples have tied the knot in Bermuda, in the wake of Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons’s landmark Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality. Mr Attride-Stirling said the status of those marriages was not addressed by Mr Furbert’s Bill, so the proposed legislation would need amending. “The legislation should have a grandfathering clause to protect the existing marriages. Is it his intention to make those marriages void? Whatever his intent, there is now a question mark over the legislation, which must be clarified.” The lawyer said the Furbert Bill would also create potential problems for those married gay couples if they wanted to divorce. Mr Attride-Stirling added: “There would be restrictions on their ability to access divorce without other amendments to the law. They wouldn’t, for example, be able to get a no-contest divorce after two years apart because the law makes reference only to husbands and wives in that regard. There are dozens of references in our legislation to husbands and wives. If the Furbert Bill is to be retabled, it would require some further drafting.” Mr Pettingill and Mr Attride-Stirling questioned last week whether John Rankin, the Governor, would sign off on the Bill if it made it through Parliament. A Government House spokesman said on Wednesday: “The Governor is unavailable for comment. The Governor will continue to act in accordance with his responsibilities under the Constitution.” The six senators who rejected Mr Furbert’s Bill labeled it regressive and an infringement on Bermuda’s human rights laws. Only one of those, independent James Jardine, remains in the Upper Chamber. Fellow independent Joan Dillas-Wright voted in favour. The OBA senate leader, Nandi Outerbridge, voted against the Bill in the House of Assembly when she was an MP.
2017. September 8. Wayne Furbert’s bid to reverse the legalization of gay marriage could put the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations, according to lawyer Mark Pettingill. Mr Pettingill, one of the lawyers who successfully litigated the case that led to same-sex marriage becoming legal, predicted the Governor may withhold assent for the Private Member’s Bill expected to be tabled by Mr Furbert in Parliament today. The proposed legislation seeks to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples and, if approved, would make Bermuda the first country in the world to do an about-turn on the issue. On the eve of the new government’s first Throne Speech, in which it may outline its plans for a gay marriage alternative, Mr Pettingill said: “The British Government is faced with a very significant issue. Mr Furbert’s particular amendment would put the UK in breach of its international obligations. The Governor, in assenting, has to look at the position.” Bermuda’s Constitution, under section 35, enables the Governor to “reserve for Her Majesty’s pleasure” any Bill inconsistent with the obligations of the British Government towards any other international organisation. One such body is the European Court of Human Rights, which has ruled there must be state recognition and protection for same-sex couples, although not necessarily through marriage. Mr Pettingill claimed approval for Mr Furbert’s Bill would put the UK in breach of that, even if Bermuda had plans for an alternative framework giving the same rights as marriage. “The problem with that is that it’s already been done. The framework is in place. People have married under a certain scheme. You can’t go ahead and say ‘we are going to remove that scheme’ and later try to impose another scheme. You are going to leave a void in the law.” Mr Pettingill said the Governor, in deciding whether to give assent, would also consider whether the Bill was consistent with the Constitution, which gives every person in Bermuda the right to freedom of expression, freedom of association and the protection of the law. Fellow lawyer Rod Attride-Stirling, who represented the Human Rights Commission in the same-sex marriage Supreme Court case, agreed the Bill could create legal problems, particularly regarding same-sex couples who have married here since the May 5 ruling. “If you look at the Bill, on its face, it would render all same-sex marriages void,” he said. “It doesn’t include a grandfathering clause to protect the existing ones. I would be surprised if the Governor were to sign it. The Bill in its present form takes away crystallized rights retroactively. That is unconstitutional which makes it legally inappropriate for the Governor to sign it.” Same-sex marriage opponent Charles Jeffers said it would be wrong for the Governor to act against “the will of the people” and refuse assent. “I don’t care what they do in Britain,” he said. “I do not believe that a governor should be taking a position that’s contrary to the views of our Parliament and to the people whom they represent. I have relatives, I have friends who are gay and I am certainly not going to shun them because they are gay. But I am not sure this is a human rights issue.” LGBT civil rights organisation Human Rights Campaign confirmed yesterday that if Mr Furbert’s Bill became law, Bermuda would be the first country to reverse a decision to allow same-sex marriage. Ty Cobb, director of HRC Global, said: “To do so… would be similar to what transpired here in the United States in California — where marriage equality began and was taken away through a ballot measure that was ultimately overturned by the US Supreme Court. This created mass chaos and harm, especially for legally wed same-sex couples and their families.”
2017. September 8. A gay couple set to wed today in Bermuda asked the “vocal minority” who oppose same-sex marriage to put aside their “fear and fundamentalism” and be “open and kind” to all their fellow citizens. Bermudian Bruce Whayman and his fiancé, Roland Maertens, who live together in Australia, where same-sex marriage is not allowed, have chosen to come to Mr Whayman’s home country to tie the knot at the Registry General’s office in front of family and friends. Although the marriage will not be recognized in Australia, the couple told The Royal Gazette it was important to them to officially commit to one another and take advantage of the “courageous decision” by Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons, which legalized gay marriage here on May 5. Mr Whayman and Mr Maertens, the first gay couple to make their Bermuda wedding plans public, want to send a message to those trying to have Mrs Justice Simmons’s decision reversed, including government backbencher Wayne Furbert and the charity Preserve Marriage, as well as support young gay Bermudians. Mr Whayman, 50, said: “People need to see that we are people. We are here, we are just like you. We want to get married here. People need to start talking to each other, particularly the religious faction in our society.” The organic food truck owner added: “Just live and let live, really. That’s what it comes down to. You have to be kind to one another. We all have to live in the same place. We are all going to see each other fairly regularly, I would imagine. Why would you make things so awkward for yourself and for other people? Bermudians have this wonderful ability to come together in a crisis and something like this, which is not a crisis at all, is clearly dividing or there is an intent to divide the community on such a trivial issue. “It’s an important issue for us. It’s not a huge issue for the country.” His 48-year-old fiancé, who works for a travel agency, added: “The first countries that changed the law on gay marriage were Holland and Belgium and no doubt there was a more liberal climate. But there were conservative elements there that will always remain conservative, but society hasn’t collapsed. Everything continues as normal. We are not a threat to anybody. It’s just a little bit of a pity that people can’t be open and kind, as their religions profess to be. We remain law-abiding citizens, taxpayers, we buy products in everyone’s stores. I was in the army. We are good civil citizens. In a secular state, we should have the same rights and responsibilities. We are not lesser citizens.” The couple met a year-and-a-half ago in Queensland and decided to get married after Mr Maertens, who has dual Australian/Belgian citizenship, proposed. They originally intended to wed in Brussels, but the paperwork proved time-consuming because documents needed translation. Mr Whayman, who left Bermuda in 1995 but still has family here, said Mrs Justice Simmons made her ruling in the case against the Government brought by Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé Greg DeRoche as the two were looking at their options. He added: “Charles-Etta Simmons made that courageous decision; she did the right thing. I thought, if she’s gone out on a limb to do that for people, we really should think about doing it there.” He described how he encountered homophobia on the island as a young man and left because he wanted to be free to explore his sexuality. “Mr Whayman said: “You can’t do that in Bermuda - leaving was the best thing I ever did in my life, for sure. But there are a lot of other people who live here who won’t or don’t have those opportunities.” The couple said they believed the majority of people in Bermuda did not have a strong opinion on same-sex marriage — a view borne out by last year’s referendum on the issue, when less than 47 per cent of the electorate voted. The non-binding poll revealed that 32 per cent of the electorate was against same-sex marriage and 15 per cent was in favour. In Australia, the Government is to hold a nationwide non-binding postal vote on the issue next week, with critics describing it as a costly, divisive poll. Mr Whayman said a “vocal minority” there and here was targeting gay people and trying to impose its religious beliefs on the whole of society. Mr Maertens added: “It’s fear and fundamentalism and not the spirit of forgiving Christianity, as I understand it.” They couple said they hoped to encourage young gay Bermudians by talking publicly about their wedding and prompt MPs, who return to Parliament today, to think before voting on Mr Furbert’s Private Member’s Bill, which seeks to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. Mr Whayman added: “We are looking forward to tomorrow — a very auspicious day. It’s so important for Roland and I to have this interview so that younger people that are coming along after us can read about us and maybe have some courage if they want to do the same thing and be free.”
2017. September 6. Government backbencher Wayne Furbert has backed out of a meeting with a young Bermudian who won the right for gay people to marry on the island. Mr Furbert was to meet with Winston Godwin-DeRoche and others from the LGBT community after the 27-year-old wrote an open letter to him on Facebook, challenging him on his parliamentary bid to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. Mr Furbert replied online that he would be “more than happy” to sit down for coffee. A get-together was arranged for yesterday morning, as reported in The Royal Gazette last week, but Mr Godwin-DeRoche told this newspaper the Progressive Labour Party politician cancelled over the weekend via e-mail. “No real reason [was given], unfortunately,” he said. “He mentioned the article. I assume he doesn’t want the attention from it. I sent him a message asking him to strongly reconsider and that I believe meeting is something we can all benefit from and he has yet to respond.” Mr Furbert declined to comment when contacted by this newspaper yesterday. “That’s my decision,” he said. He also refused to discuss the Private Member’s Bill he is expected to bring to the House of Assembly when it resumes on Friday, which will seek to reverse the landmark May 5 Supreme Court ruling which legalized gay marriage in Bermuda. Home affairs minister Walton Brown has said legislation will be tabled to protect the legal rights of same-sex couples if Mr Furbert’s Bill passes and becomes law. Mr Brown said it would contain elements similar to the draft Civil Union Bill 2016, which was circulated for “consultation only” by the last government, but “obviously would not be called that”.
2017. September 2. Preserve Marriage’s reinstatement as a charity has re-ignited questions over its funding, but Bermuda’s laws do not require the information to be disclosed. The group, which is against same-sex marriage and civil unions, has never revealed its financial backers and its lawyer told a court hearing this year that some “expressly” did not want their names “exposed”. Bermudian journalist Clare O’Connor, who works for Forbes, raised the question last week in a Facebook comment. She claimed that an unnamed “prominent Bermuda-based business leader” was “funding the Preserve Marriage bigots” and said “his shareholders have a right to know”. And one objector to the organisation’s application to have its charitable status renewed this year asked the island’s Charity Commissioners to examine financial support for the group. The objector, whose identity was withheld under public access to information rules, wrote: “They are bringing hatefulness into Bermuda and bad publicity. Where are they getting money from to support them? Was this ever investigated?” Preserve Marriage — like other charities — is not obliged to reveal the sources of its funding. It an offence for charities to fail to disclose funds received from public, government or private sources under the 2014 Charities Act, but the legislation does not require those sources to be identified. It is understood that the Charity Commissioners, when considering applications, do not usually request such information unless there is cause for concern. Preserve Marriage successfully applied for charitable status in April last year. But its application to have the status renewed was denied in May by the Charity Commissioners in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling which made gay marriage legal. The commissioners gave three reasons for the refusal, which were that the group’s purposes:
The organisation appealed against the decision and home affairs minister Walton Brown upheld the appeal this week. In a letter to Preserve Marriage, the minister said advocating for marriage to be defined as a union between a man and a woman had not been declared unlawful and he saw no difference between the charitable purposes or primary objectives set out in the group’s original status application and its renewal application. Preserve Marriage filed a financial statement of its accounts and an annual report with the Registrar-General earlier this year, in accordance with the Charities Act. But the documents, seen by The Royal Gazette, provide no clue as to who is funding the charity. According to its statement of accounts, Preserve Marriage’s net assets at the end of 2016 were $1,020. Donations totaled $165,054 last year and the group spent $155,330 on community education and $8,704 on supporting activities. Preserve Marriage said some of its donors had given more than $5,000 — though it had not received any “unusual or substantial one-off donations” — and that it had a well-established relationship with its donors. Several of Preserve Marriage’s leading members are church figures, such as deputy chairman Gary Simons, a pastor with Cornerstone Bible Fellowship, and treasurer Mark Hall, from Word of Life Fellowship. Some funding has come from churches and that is likely to include donations from Cornerstone, which suggests its parishioners pay a tithe — one-tenth of their income — to the church. Preserve Marriage was involved in the Supreme Court case earlier this year which led to the landmark ruling allowing gay people to marry. The successful plaintiffs, gay couple Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche, sought legal costs against the group and its third-party funders. But Preserve Marriage’s lawyer Delroy Duncan told the court: “You have a limited liability company which was a charity that people gave to, some under a cloak of confidentiality, some expressly saying ‘we do not want our names exposed. Some of those funders include churches and members of the community.” And Mr Duncan described the funders as “a lot of people throughout this community”. Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche are no longer seeking costs from the third-party funders. The judgment in favour of gay marriage is under appeal by both Preserve Marriage and a separate group which is supportive of its aims. The separate group is led by former MP Maxwell Burgess and the notice of appeal filed with the court by him included a list of “second appellants” which featured the signatures of more than 8,000 Preserve Marriage supporters. Those who signed consented to their names being included as appellants and they could be held liable for legal costs if the appeal fails. No one from Preserve Marriage could be contacted for comment.
2017. September 1. A young Bermudian man who won the right for gay people to marry on the island is to meet the government MP behind a bid to have the decision reversed. Winston Godwin-DeRoche, whose successful challenge to the law in the Supreme Court led to a landmark ruling in May, posted an open letter to the Progressive Labour Party backbencher Wayne Furbert on Facebook on Wednesday. Mr Godwin-DeRoche asked Mr Furbert how he could “actively work to deny the LGBT community the same rights you were denied and fought for based on your skin colour in the 1960s”. The letter has resulted in a meeting between the two men next Tuesday. Other members of the LGBT community are expected to attend. Meanwhile, British media have picked up on the possibility that Bermuda could become the first country in the world to “re-ban same-sex marriage” if Mr Furbert’s Private Member’s Bill to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples is successful. The Pink News and Gay Times both ran stories this week on the topic. Gay Times wrote: “If same-sex marriage is re-banned in the country, it would be a massive problem for cruise liners in the area, who have already taken bookings for weddings.” Bermuda Tourism Authority spokesman Glenn Jones said: “The Bermuda Tourism Authority markets Bermuda as hospitable, warm and a place welcoming to all people. We hope Bermuda’s policies live up to that promise.” Mr Godwin-DeRoche, 27, whose letter is printed in full in the Op-Ed section on page 5 today, told The Royal Gazette he reached out to Mr Furbert in the hope of getting “just a response on a human level”. He said: “At the end of the day, we are both black Bermudians. Obviously, he’s experienced a lot more of the racial aspect of things, growing up in the time period he did.” But he added: “It’s comparing apples to apples when you compare race to the same-sex marriage issue. It’s completely the same issue.” Mr Godwin-DeRoche brought his civil case with his Canadian fiancé, Greg, with whom he has since tied the knot in Canada. The lawsuit led to a ruling by Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons that legalized same-sex marriage. The decision is now being appealed by the charity Preserve Marriage and its supporters, including Mr Furbert. In his letter to Mr Furbert, Mr Godwin-DeRoche wrote that he and the politician were probably similar people with opposing views on life and that such differences were fine but said “problems arise when we are told our differences, the very things that make us who we are, make us second-class citizens. Problems arise when we are told you cannot have the same rights because you are gay”. He added: “I would like you to pause and replace the word ‘gay’ with ‘black’ or, quite frankly, with any race, nationality or ‘difference’ that you are born with and have no control over.” Mr Godwin-DeRoche wrote: “At one time, blacks had to also fight for their rights to be heard and recognized. The race issues faced in the 1960s [and earlier] are the gay rights issues we are facing at present. I am certain you, as well as the larger Bermudian community, are aware of what it has taken for race relations to get to the point of where they are now, including the riots of 1977, which we were so recently reminded of. Experiencing what you have, how can you actively work to deny the LGBT community the same rights you were denied and fought for based on your skin colour in the 1960s?” He said he and his fiancé took the decision to take legal action after they were denied the right to marry here. Mr Godwin-DeRoche added that their decision was based on the same principles the black community believed in before desegregation. “We all deserve equal rights and protection under the law, including marriage. Introducing this Private Member’s Bill will not only effectively exclude same-sex couples from the right to marriage, which you so enjoy, it will also send a message to the world about what sort of country Bermuda can be. Should this Bill be passed, Bermuda would be the only country to grant same-sex marriage and have it revoked.” He finished by asking Mr Furbert to meet him for coffee and “answer why does same-sex marriage truly offend you”. He wrote: “I consciously chose to leave religion and the Bible out of this letter. Please do me the same courtesy because, when it comes to human rights, religion has no bearing.” Mr Furbert responded online: “Hi Winston, I am not going to reply via this media but would be more than happy to sit down with you for coffee. Let’s do it ASAP.” Greg Godwin-DeRoche then chipped in and told Mr Furbert: “I don’t think I will be available to be in Bermuda but if I am, I will be there with my husband. I would love to learn more about your stance on discrimination. I don’t feel there is a logical response to discriminating one group of people, yet upholding laws and values for all or any other group. Discrimination is just that, regardless if it is race, gender, religion or sexuality.”
2017. August 30. Preserve Marriage has become a charity again after home affairs minister Walton Brown overturned a decision to refuse it charitable status. The group, which opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, first gained charitable status in 2016 but had been unsuccessful when applying again this year. The Charity Commissioners, according to minutes of meetings obtained by The Royal Gazette under public access to information, decided not to renew the group’s charitable status, partially on the grounds that its purposes were “unlawful” in light of a court decision allowing gay people to wed here. Other reasons given were that its purposes caused “more detriment than benefit” by appearing to “single out and victimize” people based on their sexual orientation, and were purely political. Preserve Marriage appealed to the Minister of Home Affairs and Mr Brown found in its favour this week. He told the organisation in a letter: “In reviewing the initial application for registration as a charity, which was successful in 2016, in comparison to your 2017 re-registration application, I see no differences with regard to your charitable purposes or primary objectives. You have provided enough information to allay all of the concerns which the commissioners used to make the determination to deny the re-registration. It can be agreed that with the recent change in law declaring same-sex marriage as legal on May 5, 2017, advocating for marriage to be defined as a union between a man and a woman has not been declared unlawful. That change in law is the only change that has occurred with respect to your initial successful application and your re-registration application. I am satisfied with your additional submissions and hereby overturn the Charity Commissioners’ decision, therefore the organisation is now granted re-registration of charitable status.” The decision means Preserve Marriage can begin soliciting donations from the public again to further its stated aim of having marriage in Bermuda “defined and upheld as a special union ordained by God between a man and a woman”. Since the May 5 Supreme Court ruling, gay marriage has been legal on the island and several same-sex couples are reported to have tied the knot. But government MP Wayne Furbert plans to reintroduce a private member’s Bill in Parliament next month to restrict it again to opposite-sex couples. This newspaper can reveal that Preserve Marriage’s application to renew its charitable status earlier this year prompted 20 letters of objection from members of the public, as well as 12 letters in support. The letters were sent to the Charity Commissioners as they deliberated over the application and have now been released under Pati, with the identities of the senders redacted. One objector wrote: “I am a married Bermudian and father. I object to Preserve Marriage being granted charitable status. The objectives of Preserve Marriage are political, discriminatory and harmful to our society and harmful to our tourism industry.” Another said: “I sincerely hope that the Charities Commission denies the continuation of charitable status for the Preserve Marriage group. This group does not meet the Commission’s objectives to educate the public, increase the public trust in charities, nor does it have a public benefit. What it does is the complete opposite: it promotes fearmongering and hate. The religious dogma of one group should not be forced on the entire community.” A Preserve Marriage supporter wrote: “I fully support their beliefs and ideals that marriage should remain between a man and a woman and they have been a public benefit and instrumental as our collective ‘voice’ for the many thousands of Bermudians who feel this way.” Another said: “I am, and always will be, against gay marriage and will support any group that opposes bringing that here to Bermuda. If these people have to get married, they can go elsewhere to do it, not here. The people have spoken loud and clear that we do not want it here, simple as that.” A press release from the Ministry of Home Affairs said Preserve Marriage was denied charitable status on May 23 and submitted an appeal on June 12. “As is the normal process, the appeal is first reviewed by the technical officers who assess whether the appeal meets the requirements of the legislation and then makes a recommendation to the Minister. The Minister ultimately accepted the recommendation of the technical review of the appeal.” It was not possible to reach anyone from Preserve Marriage for comment yesterday.
2017. August 28. The Government will draft legislation protecting the legal rights of same-sex couples if a private member’s Bill to outlaw gay marriage is passed. Acknowledging there were a lot of “ifs” before that point was reached, Walton Brown, the Minister of Home Affairs, maintained the Progressive Labour Party would stick to its election platform, which promised same-sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, except marriage. Mr Brown also suggested that debates in the House of Assembly should not go on past midnight because the “quality of the discussion went downhill” after that point but instead should end at a mutually agreeable time arranged by party whips. Government MP Wayne Furbert reiterated last month that he would bring his Bill to outlaw gay marriage back to Parliament in September and said he expected it to pass. “Our position is that same-sex couples should have all the legal rights of heterosexual couples, save for marriage,” Mr Brown said. “If the private member’s Bill is successful, then we will draft and table legislation to ensure that same-sex couples have those rights enshrined in the law. At present there is no need for this to be done due to the ruling by Justice Charles-Etta Simmons.” Mr Brown added: “There already exists a Bill, the Civil Unions Bill, which would have similar elements to what is needed, although it obviously would not be called that. That was an OBA Bill that was distributed to all MPs, but never tabled officially.” MPs will return to the House of Assembly on September 8, with the first order of business being the appointment of the Speaker. Mr Brown described the PLP’s return to Parliament as an “exciting but sobering responsibility”, and maintained that despite the Government’s huge majority the Opposition still had an important role to play. He said: “For those who have committed themselves to public service it is not the raw desire for power that is appealing but the ability to shape the destiny of your country. Parliament works when you have a Government that is challenged by an Opposition. We need to have a robust debate that gives the public some level of insight into the issues. That is how the system works. It is more to do with the quality of debate than the numbers they have — they can still put up a robust Opposition. If they had two it would be an issue, but 12 is enough to provide that level of debate.” Mr Brown told The Royal Gazette that he believed there were areas of Parliamentary procedure that needed to be looked at. “I don’t think we can have a productive debate at 3am. t’s an endurance test rather than about the quality of the debate. After midnight the debate goes downhill. Perhaps there could be a mutually agreed cut-off time between 10pm and midnight that is agreed between the whips. Some of the processes are also inappropriate for a 21st-century Parliament and raise challenges based on the freedoms enshrined in the constitution.”
2017. August 2. Bermuda’s Supreme Court ruling paving the way for same-sex marriage has been adopted by P & O Cruises, now the first British cruise lines to offer the unions, along with Princess Cruises and Cunard. The development, reported online by Cruise Critic, has been taken up by the three divisions of Carnival, which have their ships registered on the island. In a statement, Paul Ludlow, senior vice president of P & O Cruises, stated: “I am delighted that following this much anticipated change in the legalities we are now the first British cruise line to be able to arrange same sex weddings on-board.” P & O’s inability to offer same-sex marriage has generated negative press in the past. Cunard, which switched its ships’ registration from the UK to Bermuda in October 2011 to benefit from regulations here allowing couples to wed at sea, is reportedly offering same-sex marriages from November 2018. In a statement online, Josh Leibowitz, senior vice-president for Cunard North America, said the company was “proud to become among the first cruise lines to offer same-sex marriages at sea. Cunard has brought people together through travel for over 175 years, and we’re proud to mark another milestone in our company’s history as we welcome our first gay marriage booking and many other marriages to come.” Princess Cruises, which has 13 ships registered on the island, issued a statement: “We are currently working on developing a range of services and amenities to meet the needs of same sex couple ceremonies and will release full information on these shortly.”
2017. July 28. Government MP Wayne Furbert will bring his Bill to outlaw gay marriage back to Parliament in September — and he expects it to pass. Mr Furbert told The Royal Gazette that same-sex marriage was a key issue in the General Election, with the Progressive Labour Party’s clear opposition to it, as stated in its manifesto, a factor in its landslide win. He said he would not lobby his party members to support his private member’s Bill, as it would be a vote of conscience, but believed enough of them would be in favour to ensure its safe passage through the House of Assembly. The same Bill passed last year in the House but was blocked in the Senate. This time, if it passes in its current form, it will not need the approval of the Upper Chamber to become law. “I think it has a good chance,” Mr Furbert said. “If you consider who voted before, I kind of have a good feeling. In theory, I think it will go through.” The backbencher tabled his Human Rights Amendment bill in 2016, in an attempt to prevent same-sex couples who wanted to marry from taking advantage of a 2013 amendment to the Human Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation. His proposed change to the law was to insert a clause into the Human Rights Act to say nothing in it could override the provisions of section 15 (c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, which deems a marriage void unless between members of the opposite sex. Mr Furbert had earlier tried — and failed — to have the Human Rights Act amendment of 2013 changed to exclude the Matrimonial Causes Act from the reach of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. On July 8 last year, he was successful in getting his Bill passed, with 20 MPs voting in favour: 12 PLP members and 8 OBA. A week later, senators, whose approval was needed, rejected the Bill by six votes to five. Since then, a Supreme Court judge has ruled that denying the service of marriage to same-sex couples is a breach of their human rights and at least one gay couple has tied the knot on the island. Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons said in her judgment that parliamentary transcripts from 2013 showed “it was always accepted by Parliament that the 2013 [HRA] Amendment Act might lead a court to conclude that same-sex marriage was permissible” and that “there were no clear explanations given by the promoters of the [2013 amendment] Bill that the purpose and aim of the amendment was to shut out the possibility of same-sex marriage”. The judge said it was appropriate for the court to declare section 15 (c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act inoperative. Mr Furbert said if his Bill passed for a second time it would send a clear message to the judiciary as to Parliament’s intentions. “Parliament has always been supreme,” he said. “The parliament represents the people, not the judges. They interpret the law.” He suggested his enhanced majority in Hamilton West after the July 18 General Election — he took 65 per cent of the vote, compared to 56 per cent in 2012 — was directly related to same-sex marriage, with the issue also playing a part in his party’s overall massive win. The PLP’s platform said: “We accept that same-sex couples should have similar legal benefits as heterosexual couples, save for marriage, and will introduce legislation to achieve this aim. ”Mr Furbert said: “A lot of people voted with the PLP based on their view. The OBA, under Michael Dunkley, failed [on the issue]. Michael Dunkley would not take a position. I believe there were a significant amount of people who voted on this issue and a lot of white Bermudians who voted for the PLP for the first time based on that.” He pointed out that less people voted for the OBA in the General Election (13,832), than voted against same-sex marriage in last year’s referendum (14,192). Lawyer Rod Attride-Stirling, who represented the Human Rights Commission in the case which resulted in Mrs Justice Simmons’s ruling, said Mr Furbert’s bill becoming law was by no means a “done deal” and, even if it did, it was still liable to attack. There are several problems with the Furbert Bill,” he said. “Putting aside the moral problem with it and looking at the legal problems, there are a number of reasons why the Governor may not be prepared to sign it [into law]. The bill is very arguably unconstitutional.” Mr Attride-Stirling said the biggest problem with the legislation was that it was religiously motivated. “With any legislation that’s religiously based, people who don’t subscribe to that religious view are discriminated against. It is bad for that reason.” The lawyer said a further argument could be made that restricting who a person could marry based on their gender was unconstitutional, as the constitution arguably outlaws unequal treatment on the basis of sex. Mr Furbert’s Bill was also problematic, he said, because it did not mention the fact that gay couples had now legally married here. "This is a very material change from the time when the Furbert Bill was first presented to Parliament. This change in circumstances must be addressed. If section 15 (c) is resuscitated, does that mean that those existing marriages that were lawful, are now going to be made unlawful overnight? The Bill is now wholly unclear and, therefore, now inadequate. Alternatively, if existing marriages will remain lawful, then you have to go back and make changes to deal with divorce. For these reasons, the Governor may require the bill to be amended to include a grandfathering clause. This would be normal given the change in position, ie that we now have existing lawful marriages in Bermuda and crystallized rights should not be taken away retroactively. The PLP should realize this and not allow the bill to proceed. The party could make a decision to vote against a private member’s Bill. It would be a shame if it was left to the Governor to force the issue of the need for a grandfather clause.” Mr Attride-Stirling said if the Bill was substantially changed it would need to go before the Senate, where anything might happen.
Down to the numbers
2017. June 28. Opponents of same-sex marriage have filed an application to appeal against the landmark Supreme Court ruling which allowed gay couples to wed in Bermuda. The request for permission to appeal the May 5 judgment is understood to have been made to the Registrar of the Supreme Court “out of time” ie after the six-week window during which appeals usually have to be lodged. Preserve Marriage are behind the application, which features the names of thousands of people who signed a petition against same-sex marriage in the past week. Those listed describe themselves as an “aggrieved party” in the matter. Among them is former politician Maxwell Burgess, who is named on the notice of appeal as a spokesman for the petition signatories. In a press release yesterday, Mr Burgess said he felt “obligated to lead the charge for the community to appeal” the ruling by Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons. He said the “agenda of a few” was overriding the “will of the country as a whole” and claimed 8,000 people had signed the petition in the space of 48 hours. The Registrar will decide whether the application can proceed at this stage, before a judge determines whether to give leave to appeal the matter to the Court of Appeal. The applicants may have to provide security of costs for the appeal to go ahead and legal sources speculated yesterday that it could prove costly, with as much as $300,000 having to be placed in an escrow account. The original Supreme Court proceedings were brought against the Government by Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé Greg DeRoche after the Registrar-General refused to post their wedding banns. After hearing the case, in which Preserve Marriage intervened, Mrs Justice Simmons agreed with the couple that their human rights had been breached and issued an order, the wording of which is still to be finalized, declaring that same-sex marriage was legal on the island. At least one gay couple has since tied the knot and Government has said it will not appeal the ruling. Mark Pettingill, representing Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche, said yesterday: “We are aware of their [Preserve Marriage’s] attempts to file an appeal. There are significant consequences when cases are appealed by aggrieved parties." He added: “Any lawyer would advise that the basis for an appeal is non-existent.” Rod Attride-Stirling, who represented the Human Rights Commission, another intervener in the Godwin and DeRoche case, has previously said: “The judgment is sound and the legal issues that are the basis of the judgment are all correct." It wasn’t possible to reach Mr Burgess yesterday. Lawyer Rick Woolridge, who is representing the applicants seeking to appeal, said he would take instruction from his clients before commenting.Mr Burgess’s press release did not refer specifically to the application filed with the court but invited those who signed the petition to attend one of two meetings last night at the Heritage Worship Centre in Hamilton. The sessions were open only to petition signatories who brought ID along to verify who they were." I want to thank the 8,000 who came out to sign and, since we have closed stations, we have been inundated with requests from others who want to sign and be included,” said Mr Burgess. “As a result, due to public demand, stations will reopen this week to allow more members of the community to sign the appeal." The petition can be signed today and Friday from 8am to 8pm and on Saturday from 9am to 4pm at Calvary Gospel Chapel, 18 Middle Road, Southampton; Sound View First Church of God, 75 Sound View Road, Sandys; Heritage Worship Centre, Hamilton; the Evangelical Church, 1 Mission Road, Paget; and the “Old” St George’s Youth Centre, 23 Water Street. It can also be signed at the First Church of God, on North Shore Road, Pembroke, from 9am to 7.30pm today and Friday. Mr Burgess said the Government should have lodged an appeal against the judgment and should pay costs in the case. He claimed Preserve Marriage could be left “bankrupt” if it was ordered to pay costs to Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche and the Human Rights Commission.
2017. June 17. The anonymous financial backers of Preserve Marriage could have to stump up for some of the legal costs of the case which led to the legalization of same-sex marriage. At a June 1 hearing in the Supreme Court, lawyer Grant Spurling, for successful plaintiffs Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche, told Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons that his clients would pursue costs from the Government, Preserve Marriage and Preserve Marriage’s donors. Delroy Duncan, for Preserve Marriage, said the issue of those third-party funders was critical and more time was needed to enable them to gain legal representation, as was their right. “The third-party funders are separate and apart from the limited liability company, Preserve Marriage,” the lawyer said. He said Mr Spurling was seeking names, addresses and other contact details for Preserve Marriage’s donors but he did not represent those people and could not provide them. “This is, in Bermuda terms, a very serious development,” added Mr Duncan. “You have a limited liability company which was a charity that people gave to, some under a cloak of confidentiality, some expressly saying ‘we do not want our names exposed’. “Some of those funders include churches and members of the community. Those people are entitled to be told before a hearing ‘this is what you potentially face’ and get legal representation.” He described the funders as “a lot of people throughout this community” and who would need to be marshaled and made aware of their liability. Mr Spurling responded: “The third-party funders can’t be taken to be unaware of costs.” He said if money from the donors was used to fund the litigation, they had to realize they could be liable for costs. Preserve Marriage’s intervention in the matter extended the proceedings greatly, he argued, when the plaintiffs’ aim was for the issue to be dealt with as swiftly as possible. Mr Spurling said Preserve Marriage should not be allowed to “effectively, conduct litigation behind a thin corporate veil. We are not talking about piercing the veil of a limited liability company. We are talking about very specific cost orders against third-party donors.” The lawyer noted that his clients had their human rights breached when the Registrar-General refused to post their marriage banns and could not now be left with the “very heavy burden of legal costs”. Mrs Justice Simmons said there could be “great difficulty” in ensuring the third-party donors were heard in court and asked Mr Spurling if he’d be willing, for practical reasons, not to pursue those donors. He said a final determination on that could be made later, since the hearing was to be adjourned anyway. Shakira Dill-Francois, representing the Government, said Mr Spurling would need to spell out whether any of the legal work done on behalf of the plaintiffs was provided free of charge. “Our position is, we are not liable to pay for that,” she said. Mr Spurling said: “The pro bono elements are not included on the applicants’ bill.” Ms Dill-Francois also suggested it made no sense for the Human Rights Commission, another intervener in the case, to seek costs from the Government, since it was funded from the Consolidated Fund, ie the public purse. But Rod Attride-Stirling, for the HRC, replied that though its funding was from the Consolidated Fund, it was from a different budget than the one used to fund Government’s legal costs. “We say this is a case where costs should be awarded against the respondents,” he said. “The HRC does not have an unlimited budget. It has a small budget.” Mr Attride-Stirling said not awarding costs to the HRC from Government would be “punishing” it for getting involved in a case involving human rights. The costs issue was adjourned, as was a final determination on the exact wording of the judge’s order on the legality of same-sex marriage.
2017. June 17. Preserve Marriage has urged its supporters to sign a petition against the landmark ruling which legalized gay marriage in Bermuda. The organisation, which lost its charitable status in the wake of that judgment, placed the petition at three different venues on Tuesday and Wednesday this week, telling followers on social media: “All of Bermuda, including those who voted against same-sex marriage, come out to sign … in any one of three locations.” The venues were Calvary Gospel Chapel in Southampton, Heritage Worship Centre in Hamilton and St George’s Youth Centre. The online flyer said: “Calling Bermuda to sign the community appeal against Justice Simmons’s single ruling of same-sex marriage. One will not decide for our children. Preserve Marriage has fought for Bermuda. Now it’s time for Bermuda to fight to preserve marriage.” It stated: “Government won’t appeal, so we the people will.” The group was due to hold a meeting on Monday (June 12) for those in support of appealing the decision, with members told in an e-mail that Preserve Marriage’s lawyer Delroy Duncan would “give an update on next steps”. The e-mail said American preacher Tony Evans, a Christian pastor who believes same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, would be present to “encourage all”. The message also revealed that Preserve Marriage’s potential liability for costs in the same-sex marriage Supreme Court case would be on the agenda. The Preserve Marriage e-mail to its members said going after the group for legal fees would “silence your voice. Lawyer [Mark] Pettingill, representing Godwin and DeRoche — who ended up getting married in Canada — after bringing same-sex marriage to Bermuda, is now trying to claim their legal fees from Preserve Marriage Bermuda and its supporters to attempt to cripple us financially.” Preserve Marriage has not responded to an e-mail request for comment.
2017. June 17. Opposition MP Wayne Furbert remains steadfast on returning to the House with his private member’s Bill restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, after the dust from the General Election has settled. “Right now there’s nothing to debate, but if I am elected I’ll bring it back in November,” the Hamilton West MP told The Royal Gazette. Mr Furbert described the draft legislation as “not a Progressive Labour Party Bill, but a conscience vote for everyone”, and said his party’s position had always stood at leaving the vote up to individual MPs. Twenty MPs, 12 of them from the Progressive Labour Party ranks, approved the Bill in July 2016, although the Senate subsequently turned it down — with a defiant Mr Furbert bringing it back to Parliament last month. But with the election called for July 18, just ahead of the scheduled return to the House, the future of Mr Furbert’s legislation could be less settled. Asked if he felt confident of getting the same reception to next time around, Mr Furbert said attitudes “could change based on the political climate at the time”. He said: “Some of those MPs may be in Parliament and some not. But if I am given the OK on July 18, it will be laid back down. It’s my obligation to do that at the earliest opportunity.”
2017. June 2. Equal rights campaigners were celebrating yesterday after it was revealed that Bermuda’s first gay wedding had taken place. The marriage ceremony of Bermudian lawyer Julia Saltus and her fiancée Judith Aidoo was conducted at the Registry-General on Wednesday, followed by a reception at Café Lido at Elbow Beach, according to one guest who attended. The nuptials came less than a month after the landmark Supreme Court ruling of May 5 which enabled gay people to marry on the island. Former Cabinet Minister Renee Webb, who tried unsuccessfully to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation more than a decade ago, told The Royal Gazette: “I attended the wedding, along with many others.” Ms Webb earlier posted on this newspaper’s website that she had the “pleasure and honour” of being at the ceremony. “The professional staff carried out the marriage of the brides with professionalism and a great sense of duty,” she wrote. “The Assistant Registrar is to be commended in her giving of the marriage vows. The sky did not fall, nor did it fall when we attended the reception on the beach at Café Lido. Bermuda is indeed a beautiful place. I am pleased at how kind and compassionate we Bermudians can be. I am proud of my personal journey in helping to bring about same-sex equality. Congratulations on their marriage to the beautiful women for their courage and demonstration of love. Love wins.” Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé Greg DeRoche brought the successful civil suit against the Government which led to Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons’s ruling last month. Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche have since married in Toronto, making Ms Saltus and Ms Aido the first gay couple to take advantage of the judgment and tie the knot here. Lawyer Mark Pettingill, who represented Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche, said yesterday he was “thrilled” to hear about Wednesday’s ceremony. “I hope there will be many more to follow in short order,” said the independent MP. Marriage equality campaigner Tony Brannon, who launched a petition to legalize same-sex marriage in 2015, said he spoke to the newlyweds as they celebrated at Café Lido and could not have been more delighted for them. “I am so happy for this wonderful news,” he said. “I met both of them. They were so happy and they said the lady at the registry office who married them was brilliant. Renee Webb and I hugged in celebration.” He said it was noteworthy that the wedding took place on the day Opposition MP Wayne Furbert’s bid to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples was making headlines. “Wayne Furbert should hang his head in shame,” he said. The Rainbow Alliance, which works to create safe spaces for LGBTQ people and their allies, said in a statement: “The Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda send our congratulations to the happy couple and wish them the best in their future together. Many other gay Bermudian couples have been waiting decades for the chance to marry their loved one and we’re excited to see people already take advantage of this move towards equality.” Ms Webb said the newlyweds were not interested in “being trailblazers”. She added: “They simply wanted to get married here.” The wedding was mentioned at a Supreme Court hearing yesterday regarding the ruling of Mrs Justice Simmons. The judge asked counsel if a same-sex marriage had taken place in Bermuda yet. Deputy Solicitor-General Shakira Dill-Francois, for the Government, and Rod Attride-Stirling, for the HRC, said one was held on Wednesday. Yesterday’s hearing was to determine the exact wording of the judge’s order declaring that gay marriage is legal. Mrs Justice Simmons took submissions from Ms Dill-Francois and Grant Spurling, representing Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche, as well as Mr Attride-Stirling and Delroy Duncan, for the pressure group Preserve Marriage. The latter two entities were interveners in the case. The judge reserved judgment on the final wording of the order — and on costs — to a later date.
2017. May 31. Bermuda remains marginally against same-sex marriage, according to a poll commissioned by The Royal Gazette. Forty-eight per cent of registered voters oppose the idea, with 44 per cent in favour and 8 per cent undecided, the Global Research survey found this month. It means the gap has narrowed slightly, from eight percentage points to four, since the no campaign led 49-41 last June. The poll was carried out between May 15 and 19, a few days after Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons ruled in favour of Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche’s bid to marry on the island. The couple finally married in Toronto anyway on May 20, saying that their legal battle had been about forcing overdue change. Bermuda’s historical division over same-sex issues has come to the fore in recent years, with the Human Rights Act amended in 2013 to protect people from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. That was followed by campaigns from Rainbow Alliance and Preserve Marriage, for and against same-sex marriage respectively, in the run-up to a referendum last June. In July 2010, a Mindmaps poll found 27 per cent of registered voters in favour of same-sex marriage, with 51 per cent against and 22 per cent undecided. In October 2015, a Global Research poll found the score 48-44 in favour of the yes campaign, but by March 2016 the no campaign was leading 48-45. That lead stretched to 49-41 three months later. At last June’s referendum, 69 per cent of those who voted were against same-sex marriage and 31 per cent in favour. That translated to 32 per cent of the electorate against and 15 per cent in favour but, with a turnout of 47 per cent, the referendum was deemed unanswered. A breakdown of this month’s poll shows whites and the younger generation are most in favour of same-sex marriage. Among whites, 74 per cent were in favour, with 16 per cent against; among blacks, 24 per cent were in favour, with 68 per cent against. Among the 18 to 34 age group, 55 per cent were in favour, with 29 per cent against; among the over 65 age group, 37 per cent were in favour and 59 per cent against. The telephone poll of 400 people has a margin of error of +/- 5 per cent.
2017. May 31. Same-sex couples could have only a brief window of time in which to marry in Bermuda if a Bill tabled by Opposition politician Wayne Furbert passes in Parliament and gets royal assent. The draft legislation, which can be debated and voted on by MPs after July 8 and does not need Senate approval, would restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples. Gay people have had the right to wed one another in Bermuda since a landmark Supreme Court ruling on May 5, with at least one couple already giving notice of their intended nuptials. But the successful passage of Mr Furbert’s Bill could remove that right, meaning only same-sex marriages conducted here before the Bill was enacted into law would be valid. Commentators were divided yesterday on whether Mr Furbert’s private member’s Bill was likely to succeed. The same Bill passed in the House of Assembly last summer by 20 votes to ten, but was then blocked by the Upper Chamber, after six senators voted against it, including Mr Furbert’s Progressive Labour Party colleague Kim Wilkerson. Mr Furbert re-tabled his Bill earlier this month and, as per section 38 (2) of the Bermuda Constitution Order, there is no need this time for Senate approval before it goes to the Governor for assent. One parliamentary source, who asked not to be named, predicted yesterday that any fresh voting in the House was unlikely to have changed from last time. “I don’t think the numbers will change much at all,” said the source. “I think everyone will vote exactly as they voted before.” Those in favour of the Bill last year were: Jeanne Atherden, Kenneth Bascome, Craig Cannonier, Bob Richards, Sylvan Richards, Leah Scott, Wayne Scott and Cole Simons, of the One Bermuda Alliance, and Derrick Burgess, David Burt, Rolfe Commissiong, Lovitta Foggo, Mr Furbert, Dennis Lister, Diallo Rabain, Walter Roban, Lawrence Scott, Jamahl Simmons, Michael Weeks and Kim Wilson, of the PLP. Those against were: the OBA’s Grant Gibbons, Patricia Gordon-Pamplin, Trevor Moniz, Nandi Outerbridge, Mark Pettingill (who is now an independent MP), Glen Smith and Jeff Sousa, the PLP’s Walton Brown and Michael Scott and independent Shawn Crockwell. Michael Dunkley, the Premier, abstained. The OBA’s Suzann Roberts and Susan Jackson could not vote as they were, respectively, acting Speaker and committee chairman. The PLP’s Marc Bean and Zane DeSilva were absent, as was Speaker Randy Horton. Mr Bean’s seat is now held by Opposition MP Neville Tyrell. The source suggested MPs in marginal seats, who voted for Mr Furbert’s Bill last time around, would be least likely to change their position for fear of losing support, noting the vocal opposition to same-sex marriage from some churches and the pressure group Preserve Marriage. But lawyer Rod Attride-Stirling said: “I don’t think it’s certain that the vote will be the same. I understand that some people are reviewing [the Supreme Court judgment].” He said there were a variety of reasons why it was “far from certain that the Bill will ever become law”. Among them was the fact that the Bill can’t be debated before July 8 — 12 months after it first passed in the House — and a motion of no confidence in Mr Dunkley is scheduled for June 9, leaving no guarantee that Parliament will still be sitting by then. Even if it is, Mr Furbert’s Bill may not be taken up by the House before it breaks for the summer, as the Government may have other priorities. The Bill would amend the Human Rights Act by carving out a clause to give primacy where marriage is concerned to the Matrimonial Causes Act, which deems unions void unless between a man and a woman. If it was to be voted on again, legislators would be expected to have carefully read the May 5 ruling by Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons. The judge found that denying same-sex couples the right to marry created a hardship for them, and any children they might have, and was a breach of their human rights. Government, which was the defendant in the civil suit, said it would not appeal. Mr Attride-Stirling represented the Human Rights Commission as an intervener in the case. Giving his personal opinion to this newspaper, he said it would be “very difficult to vote for a change to the human rights legislation” in light of the judgment. He added: “The judgment is sound and the legal issues that are the basis of the judgment are all correct.” Neither political party has stated a firm position on same-sex marriage. An OBA spokesman told this newspaper earlier this month: “At this point, the party is not going to comment.” A PLP spokeswoman said on Sunday: “The issue of same-sex marriage is a matter of conscience for individual PLP MPs, as our members and supporters hold strong and divergent views, as they are free to do.” If Mr Furbert is able to get enough support for his Bill to pass, it will need the assent of John Rankin, the Governor, who is on record as a supporter of same-sex civil unions. Sources said he would be highly unlikely to refuse assent. “If he did reject [the Bill], it would create a constitutional challenge,” said the first parliamentary source. A second source said they believed it would receive assent. The United Kingdom enacted same-sex marriage legislation in 2014 and has said it expects its Overseas Territories to meet the same high standards as the British Government with regards to human rights. The source said the UK would likely be satisfied that Bermuda had met its obligations if it passed civil union legislation, meaning the draft civil union Bill, which was never tabled in Parliament by the Government before last year’s referendum, could resurface if Mr Furbert’s Bill was successful.
May 26. Thousands rallied behind same-sex union opponents Preserve Marriage yesterday outside Parliament, alongside a smaller peaceful demonstration by supporters of same-sex marriage. Addressed by various speakers, the crowd reiterated calls for the Government to appeal the Supreme Court’s decision permitting same-sex unions. While the group’s charitable status has been revoked, Preserve Marriage vowed to continue as a registered company with more than 500 members. “We are not to be bullied into silence, and we want to encourage Bermuda to stand for marriage,” one speaker told the crowd, maintaining that the group had been hit with “hate speech and biased reporting”. Crowds flocked to the grounds of the House of Assembly, with onlookers lining the streets, many carrying signs reading: “I am standing today for marriage to be between a man and a woman for Bermuda’s next generation.” The crowd also chanted: “One woman, one man, we need to take a stand.” Other signs opposed to same-sex marriage visible at the demonstration included: “Obedience is better than sacrifice,” and “2 **** boy can’t get married". Signs among supporters of the Rainbow Alliance of Bermuda included: “Let’s have the humility to leave the final judgment to God himself”, and “Love wins”. Rainbow umbrellas and other rainbow-colored items could also be seen. Josh Correia, with the Rainbow Alliance, said that the larger demonstration opposed to same-sex marriage was reflective of public opinion. “As much as I hate to say it, that’s Bermuda,” he said. Mr Correia said that while there is a larger LGBTQ-plus community than many realize on the island, many who identify aren’t open about it. “They don’t want to be vilified, they don’t want to be turned into a scapegoat by their community,” he said. While the Supreme Court ruling was the “right thing”, Mr Correia said that attitudes take a long time to change. “It’s certainly not going to happen overnight, and it’s definitely something we at the Rainbow Alliance will be working to help facilitate in the years to come.” Stressing that all were entitled to make their views known, Progressive Labour Party MP Wayne Furbert told The Royal Gazette that the turnout yesterday sent a clear message. “It makes it very clear that Bermudians want to ensure that marriage is defined [as] between a male and a female,” he added. Mr Furbert has vowed to press ahead with his private members’ Bill aimed at fortifying marriage when it comes up for debate in early July. “This year is an election year — you better listen to us,” he said. “If not, you decide whether or not you are going back to Parliament.” As demonstrators dispersed at about 1.30pm, equal rights proponent Mark Anderson declared himself “very proud to stand here as a gay Bermudian — and proud that Bermuda is a democracy where we can deal with issues”. While some interactions between demonstrators appeared heated, and others questioned why two counter-rallies had been allowed for the same location, civility seemed to prevail — although Mr Furbert said he had been dealt some abusive remarks. Police were on hand to monitor the demonstrations and assist with traffic. A Bermuda Police Service spokesman thanked the motoring public for their patience and co-operation during the event, which apparently occurred without incident.
May 26. Preserve Marriage is no longer a charity after the island’s Charity Commissioners decided its purposes were “unlawful” and caused “more detriment than benefit”. The panel took the decision to reject an application for renewal of the group’s charitable status on May 16, according to minutes of the meeting shared with The Royal Gazette under public access to information. The decision was shared with the public by Preserve Marriage itself, in a press release it sent out yesterday morning, shortly before leading a demonstration outside Parliament against same-sex marriage. The organisation said the rejection from the commissioners came despite a “20-plus page submission” it made detailing “how it fulfilled its mandate to educate the public on the issue of maintaining marriage between a man and a woman”. The May 16 minutes reveal that the commissioners denied the application for three reasons: • Preserve Marriage’s purposes being “unlawful” in light of the landmark May 5 Supreme Court ruling allowing gay couples to wed in Bermuda;• its purposes causing “more detriment than benefit” by appearing to “single out and victimize” people based on their sexual orientation; and• its purposes being purely political. The commissioners agreed that since the Government wasn’t planning to appeal the Supreme Court ruling, it should be considered final. The minutes state: “Insofar as the organisation’s primary purpose is to advocate for a definition of marriage which is now contrary to law and, in doing so, to seek to deny services to a group of individuals defined by virtue of a protected characteristic under the [Human Rights] Act, it fails the public benefit test.” In its press release, Preserve Marriage said in its first year as a charity it had held town hall meetings, public information sessions, island-wide marriage events and marriage-enriching seminars, fulfilling its mandate to educate the public. “We felt it imperative to educate the community and Government so that the public had the opportunity to exercise their constitutional right to stand for marriage between a man and a woman,” it said .The group claimed it was “invited by the courts and Government to intervene in the same-sex marriage case to ensure the community’s interests were represented” .It added: “Preserve Marriage was invited by the judge to intervene to support the Registrar-General’s office, the very office which is responsible for the Charities Commission.” Preserve Marriage applied to intervene in the case, as did the Human Rights Commission, and both were granted permission by Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons. Lawyer Rod Attride-Stirling, who represented the HRC in the matter, said yesterday: “The court did not invite them to intervene. There was no invitation. They applied for and received permission. The Attorney-General’s Chambers did not respond to a request for comment. Preserve Marriage was granted charitable status last year, despite 31 letters of objection from the public. Charity Commissioners chairman Richard Ambrosio said there were “quite a few” objections this year, though they have yet to be released under Pati. As of yesterday afternoon, Preserve Marriage’s website still had a donation section but, without charitable status, it must now cease any public fundraising. The press release said it would continue to operate as a registered company, with more than 500 members, and would “continue to inform and educate the public concerning traditional marriage and same-sex marriage.” It noted that OutBermuda, an organisation which supports same-sex marriage, recently had its charitable status renewed. Mr Attride-Stirling said: “It would be unusual for the Charity Commissioners to permit any entity to be given charitable status whose stated purpose is to prevent another group human rights or the exercise of human rights. And that’s the key purpose of Preserve Marriage. It could never be a legitimate charitable purpose, to prevent others from having human rights. OutBermuda ... are advocating for human rights for a minority group.” He said if Preserve Marriage had not “led the charge” against civil unions, the Government would likely have passed civil union legislation, and the issue of same-sex marriage would not need to have been decided by the courts.
2017. May 23. The couple whose legal challenge paved the way for same-sex marriage in Bermuda have got married in Canada. Bermudian Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche said they chose to have the ceremony in Mr DeRoche’s home city of Toronto after further delays publishing their marriage notice in Bermuda. They told The Royal Gazette that they also wanted to be in control of their own marriage and conduct the service on their own terms after the legal ruling. The short, simple service took place under sunny skies at Toronto City Hall on Saturday at 3pm and was attended by around 20 of the couple’s family and close friends. “The court case was never really about us as individuals,” Mr Godwin said. “It was more about getting something done in Bermuda that was overdue and needed to happen. To see the other same-sex couples using the ruling and getting their banns posted in the paper was the most rewarding thing for us. The outcome and its ramifications are what was really important; when it came to our marriage we wanted to keep it small, subdued and informal. And even more importantly, we wanted to feel like we had control of how it happened and who was there.” Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche embarked on their fight for equal rights after the Registrar-General rejected their application to marry on the island in July 2016. They took their case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Human Rights Act took primacy in Bermuda and protected their right to marry. At the beginning of this month Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons ruled in the couple’s favour. “The common law definition of marriage, that marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, and its reflection in the Marriage Act section 24 and the Matrimonial Clauses Act section 15 (c) are inconsistent with the provisions of the Human Rights Act as they constitute deliberate different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation,” Mrs Justice Simmons said. The judge ruled that the common law discriminated against same-sex couples by excluding them from marriage. Mr Godwin added: “We do hope that people can understand why we made our choice. It would have been great to include many of the supporters that started this journey of the case with us but ultimately, due to a variety of factors, including time, we wanted to ensure that we did it our way and on our terms. We thank everyone from the bottom of our hearts that stuck by our side and supported us along the way.”
2017. May 19. A Bill that would solidify marriage as being between a man and a woman has been brought back to the House of Assembly for a second time. Progressive Labour Party MP Wayne Furbert has reintroduced the Human Rights Amendment Act as a Private Member’s Bill, telling The Royal Gazette that there were still legislative options on the table. The move comes after Justice Charles-Etta Simmons ruled in favour of Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, who had fought for equal rights after the Registrar-General rejected their application to marry on the island. “The system has not exhausted itself legislatively,” Mr Furbert said. He added that in her ruling, Mrs Justice Simmons “chastised Parliament for abrogating its responsibility”. And he said that while he “does not have the confidence” that the Bill will pass this time around, he felt it was his duty to fight for it in Parliament. Mr Furbert said many of his constituents had approached him about this. “Here is a Government that could appeal it, but hasn’t,” he added. “If Mark Pettingill had lost in the Supreme Court he would gone to the next stage,” he said. He added that this would have involved the Court of Appeal and ultimately the Privy Council. Speaking during the morning question session, Minister of Home Affairs Patricia Gordon-Pamplin said legal amendments to be drafted in light of the ruling were under discussion. But Ms Gordon-Pamplin deferred when asked whether marriages conducted before the amendments would be legal, saying she would await answers from the Attorney-General. Although independent MP Mark Pettingill said the ruling set out “very, very clearly what the position was in law — it should have taken five minutes for the AG’s chambers to advise”, Mr Furbert said there was still confusion. He added: “We still don’t know where it is legally.” The same amendments, which were rejected by the Senate last year after winning approval from the House of Assembly, would state that nothing in the Human Rights Act would override the provisions in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974, which stipulates that marriages that are not between a man and a woman are void. The Bill was brought before the House of Assembly last year and was passed by 20 to ten on July 8. However, it was then defeated six-to-five in the Senate. After Mr Furbert introduced the Bill today, he was told by Mr Horton that it could not go ahead until at least July 8. Mr Furbert explained that a year had to elapse before the Act could be brought again once it was defeated.
2017. May 19. Legal amendments to be drafted in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage are under discussion, home affairs minister Patricia Gordon-Pamplin said today. Responding to questions from Progressive Labour Party MP Walton Brown, Ms Gordon-Pamplin told the House of Assembly the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Attorney-General’s Chambers are working to identify necessary amendments. The minister deferred when asked whether marriages conducted before the amendments would be legal, saying she would await answers from the Attorney-General. Independent MP Mark Pettingill told the House that the ruling set out “very, very clearly what the position was in law — it should have taken five minutes for the AG’s chambers to advise. Why is it taking so long?” Mr Pettingill asked. Ms Gordon-Pamplin responded that she was “not a lawyer, and I don’t wish to misspeak”. Earlier this month, Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons ruled in favour of Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiance Greg DeRoche, who had fought for the right to marry in Bermuda. The couple had brought a civil suit against the Government after the Registrar-General refused to publish their marriage banns, claiming his failure to do so was discrimination under the Human Rights Act.
2017. May 17. The Registrar-General has posted the first wedding banns in Bermuda for a same-sex couple — but those against gay marriage are still seeking to stop such unions taking place. Julia Saltus, of Sandys, and Judith Aido, of Maryland, United States, applied last week for permission to tie the knot here, just days after a Supreme Court judge ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry on the island. The notice of their intended marriage comes as protesters begin preparing for a demonstration outside Parliament against same-sex marriage, planned for Thursday next week. Registrar Aubrey Pennyman complied with a May 5 order by Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons and posted the banns for Ms Saltus and Ms Aido last week. A notice appeared in The Royal Gazette on Saturday (May 13). The couple will be able to wed once the Registrar issues them with a certificate of marriage, which he can do under the Marriage Act 1944, “if no lawful impediment has been shown to his satisfaction why a certificate should not [be] issue[d]”. In the meantime, plans are being hatched to press MPs to pass legislation to override Mrs Justice Simmons’s decision and prevent same-sex marriages from taking place. Opposition MP Wayne Furbert, who is “still considering” re-tabling an amendment Bill in the House of Assembly restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, told this newspaper he was aware a demonstration was in the pipeline, though he would not identify the organisers. “I think there is a group working on something,” he said yesterday. Messages on social media suggested the protest was being organised by Preserve Marriage, which has been the most vocal group against same-sex marriage in Bermuda. It intervened in the Supreme Court case which led to the judge’s landmark ruling and campaigned before the referendum on marriage equality in June 2016. One message asked: “Would you and some of your friends consider standing with churches on the lawn of Parliament House from 12.30pm to 1.30pm on Thursday, May 25, in support of Preserve Marriage, as the organisation seeks to amend the court’s ruling to uphold gay marriage?” The message continued: “If there are not thousands of us standing peacefully, it’s likely that what the court has decided will be binding. Think of the ramifications of an entirely different culture. People who believe in God will be persecuted to death even. Who gives these people the right to confuse children. This is serious!” Another message read: “Family — next week Thursday please meet outside of the Parliament building to show your support for marriage being between a man and a woman. Four thousand people are needed to make a stand for our vote to be passed. May 25 at 12.30pm to 1.30pm. Please invite your friends!” Preserve Marriage is waiting to hear if its charitable status has been renewed, after it expired on April 6. It did not respond to an e-mail request for comment yesterday. The marriage notice for Ms Saltus and Ms Aido is likely to be followed by others. Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche, the couple who brought the successful Supreme Court proceedings, are expected to resubmit their application to wed. Bermudian Eugene O’Connor also told this newspaper he and his fiancé were preparing to file their request. A previous landmark ruling on same-sex relationships — the Bermuda Bred decision of November 2015 — gave gay foreign partners of Bermudians the same right to reside and seek employment as spouses of Bermudians. By the end of last month, eight letters of permission had been issued to same-sex partners by the Department of Immigration, according to a Ministry of Home Affairs spokeswoman. The department’s guidelines for issuing the letters, released in February this year, say each case will be determined on its merits.
2017. May 12. Preserve Marriage has called on the Bermuda Government to appeal against the landmark court decision on gay marriage. In a statement, the group, which cannot legally challenge the ruling itself, said: “Preserve Marriage does not agree with the decision of the OBA Government not to appeal the same-sex marriage ruling. “We wish to make it clear that the OBA Government cannot free itself from responsibility for the introduction of same-sex marriage in Bermuda and give the Bermuda people the conclusion, ‘Well, the courts did it.’” Last week, Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons ruled in favour of Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé Greg DeRoche who had fought for the right to marry in Bermuda. The couple had brought a civil suit against the Government after the Registrar-General refused to publish their marriage banns, claiming his failure to do so was discrimination under the Human Rights Act. Mrs Justice Simmons agreed, ruling that the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that same-sex couples could be married here and an order compelling the Registrar to issue the banns.
2017. May 12. The Human Rights Commission has announced its backing of the same-sex ruling handed down by Justice Charles-Etta Simmons earlier this week. The judgment reinforces the Commission’s position that “the primacy of the Human Rights Act, 1981 should be upheld, equality enforced, and rights respected,” said a HRC statement released this evening. “The decision also confirms that the Human Rights Act, 1981 serves as an important tool to protect the rights in keeping with the spirit of protection of rights and freedoms under our Constitution. At its core, this is an issue of equality and ensuring that all people are treated equally under the law. The issue of same-sex marriage has been a highly divisive one and whilst many are in support of the historic judgment issued by the Supreme Court on Friday May 5, 2017, there are strongly held views opposing the judgment, and the Commission recognizes this reality. The challenge of balancing competing rights is a dynamic and evolving duty that requires constant consideration. The Human Rights Commission takes this responsibility very seriously and in the coming months we will continue to work with the government, members of the LGBTQ community, religious institutions and other stakeholders to ensure that freedom of religion together with freedom from discrimination based and equality for all will be upheld in Bermuda. The HRC is a resource for the public, and will continue to work with all members of the community to address questions and concerns on this matter as well as all other Human Rights matters moving forward. More information can be given by calling 295-5859. The HRC is located at 32 Victoria Street on the ground floor of Milner House. E-mails can be submitted to email@example.com.
2017. May 10. The Government will not appeal last week’s landmark legal ruling on same-sex marriage. Home affairs minister Pat Gordon-Pamplin told The Royal Gazette last night: “The Government acknowledges the Supreme Court ruling handed down on Friday last and, upon legal advice, we have determined that we will not lodge an appeal against the judgment. “While we accept that widespread support of this very sensitive and emotive issue of marriage equality is difficult to achieve, we do, however, recognise that as a community we must be able to have open and honest conversations which help to encourage awareness, understanding, tolerance and respect for one another. We will abide by the decision of the judiciary and will implement the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the judgment.” The ruling by Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons enables gay couples to marry in Bermuda. Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé Greg DeRoche brought the civil suit against the Government after the Registrar-General refused to publish their marriage banns. They claimed his failure to do so was discrimination under the Human Rights Act and Mrs Justice Simmons agreed, ruling that the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that same-sex couples could be married here and an order compelling the Registrar to issue the banns. Earlier yesterday, before the minister made her comments, this newspaper asked Mark Pettingill, the lawyer representing the couple who won the case, if an appeal was likely. “In light of how significant this judgment is and how it accords with all of the decisions in relation to human rights internationally and in the United Kingdom and in Europe, I would be extremely surprised were the respondents to pursue an appeal,” said the former Attorney-General. Another legal source, who did not wish to be named, pointed out that this Supreme Court case was the fourth regarding the primacy of the Human Rights Act over other laws. The Government lost the three previous suits, two of which involved same-sex relationships, and did not appeal. “It would be kind of odd for them to appeal this one,” said the source. Preserve Marriage, a group opposed to same-sex marriage and civil unions, was an intervener in the most recent case. The hearing earlier this year was told that interveners do not have the right to appeal judgments.
2017. May 8. A Bermudian is planning to file his banns in quick order after Friday’s Supreme Court gay marriage ruling, telling The Royal Gazette: “I would love to get married in my own country.” Eugene O’Connor, who was born and raised in Bermuda, joins many members of the LGBTQ community in celebration of the ruling which they believe marks the first step in stamping out discrimination. Meanwhile, Progressive Labour Party MP Wayne Furbert told this newspaper he is “deeply considering” re-tabling an amendment Bill that would solidify marriage as being between a man and a woman. The amendments, which were rejected by the Senate last year after winning approval from the House of Assembly, would state that nothing in the Human Rights Act would override the provisions in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974, which stipulates that marriages that are not between a man and a woman are void. Mr Furbert added that he believes that a binding referendum should be held to give the public a chance to make the final decision. Last Friday, Puisne Judge Charles- Etta Simmons ruled in favour of Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, who had fought for equal rights after the Registrar-General rejected their application to marry on the island. Yesterday, Mr O’Connor said he has filled out the information required to apply for his banns and will file them at the earliest opportunity. “It is quite significant for me, I would love to get married in my own country,” he told The Royal Gazette. “It is definitely a step forward and a huge accomplishment. Speaking to my fellow gay friends, they are all ecstatic that it has finally gone through and that the judge actually went in with an open heart and realized what they were doing was wrong. We are consenting adults. Loads of Bermudians want to come back to Bermuda — this little act of bringing equal rights is making people want to come home. “We [my fiancé and I] spoke about it today and I have already filled out the form. Before the ruling we thought that even if we went away to get married we would come back to where we both live and it would not be recognized — we thought we shouldn’t get married as an added expense because it wouldn’t hold any legs in Bermuda. If it came to the point that it was that big of an issue, we even thought about relocating.” Mr O’Connor said he comes from a religious background but his life decisions have not been directly impacted by this. He said: “I come from a very traditional family, my mother is Catholic, I was brought up in the Anglican Church. I am very spiritual and religious but there is a lot of biblical nonsense going on. I am a very conservative type. I don’t push it in people’s faces, I just think it is normal that I live my life and you live your life. Some have had it a lot worse than I have. “My lifestyle and choices are my business. My mother always used to say to me, ‘Are they paying your Belco bill? So why do you care what they are doing?’” Mr O’Connor’s fiancé, who wishes to remain anonymous, added: “I feel more secure and emotionally I can now give the relationship my all.” Community activist and member of the LGBTQ community Linda Mienzer said that she also intends on having a same-sex marriage in Bermuda. And while she believes the ruling was “a victory for Bermuda”, she believes the island still has a long way to go because of “religious hypocrisy”. Ms Mienzer said: “My initial reaction was shock that after such a long journey we had finally arrived at this place. We still have a long way to go — we are supposedly a very religious country but I don’t think that is challenged enough because the same people who would throw the bible at me are offenders of all sorts of rules of the bible. “We operate in a society where it’s ‘don’t ask don’t tell’. As long as you present the image of what people think you should fall into then we will just go along and be happy on our merry way. But if you step outside that box then you are ostracized and shunned — it is a very unhealthy environment. I come from a black community who are all up in arms about discrimination because of colour, but who are discriminating against me because me because of my sexuality — that is a very difficult thing to reconcile. Will this ruling fix all our ills? Absolutely not, but this is one step closer to acknowledging that people have a right to equal access.” Ms Mienzer said a line has to be drawn between church and state: “Every religion is entitled to the freedom of how they want their churches to operate but I don’t think they have the right to dictate how government services operate.” She gave credit to Mr Furbert, saying he gave her a hug after the ruling, telling her he had nothing against her personally. Mr Furbert told this newspaper that he wants to speak with his colleagues before deciding whether to go ahead with his amendment. He said: “I am deeply considering it. I have had a lot of calls and e-mails suggesting I push this on. They are putting the pressure on me, that is for sure.” But ultimately he wished for the decision on same-sex marriage to be put firmly in the hands of the public, criticizing the One Bermuda Alliance’s decision to hold a non-binding referendum in June of last year. “We need another referendum that is binding. Why have a non-binding referendum? What are people going to come out for, a Sunday walk? They didn’t take it seriously.” Adrian Hartnett-Beasley, a gay Bermudian who married overseas, said he is proud of the courts for “building out a more just and equal framework, where the legislature failed us”. However, he remained cautious in his optimism, adding: “While marriage equality is one of the issues facing Bermuda’s LGBTQ community, there are many more that affect us on a day-to-day basis and the often hostile Bermuda environment makes simple matters difficult and legal avenues are just not often feasible.” Action group Preserve Marriage strongly criticised the ruling on Friday, calling it “an attack on traditional marriage and an attack on Christian and other faith-based and traditional values”. The group also highlighted that Bermuda has become the only country to introduce same-sex marriage through the ruling of a single judge. Mr Hartnett-Beasley added: “Preserve Marriage and MP Wayne Furbert have already publicly shown their discontent and disagreement with the decision. Neither the OBA nor the PLP have come out publicly with a statement of support; there are undoubtedly disagreements within each party on how to handle this topic, especially in an election year. Hopefully marriage equality and LGBTQ rights generally are not going to be a political football during 2017.” Mark Anderson, a Bermudian who has stood up for equal rights for many years, told The Royal Gazette: “I never thought in my wildest dreams that this would happen — not in my lifetime. It is great for Bermuda.” Mr Anderson said he will be organising a celebratory event on June 5 — one month after the ruling. And Joe Gibbons, a Bermudian who married his partner overseas, added: “For those who are married, it makes all the aspects of hetero marriage apply. It also makes it possible for same-sex couples to more comfortably adopt, and plan a future life. And despite the nonsense, the only people impacted by this change are LGBT. Otherwise life goes on as usual.”
2017. May 6. In her landmark judgment, Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons set out draft declarations of how the Marriage Act and Matrimonial Clauses Act could be reformulated in light of the ruling. The judge also prefaced her suggestions by saying “I will hear from counsel on the precise terms of the final Order.” Firstly the definition of marriage would be inoperative to the extent that it contains the terms “one man and one woman” and reformulated to read: “the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others”. Secondly she said it would be appropriate for the court to declare section 24 (b) of the Marriage Act to be inoperative to the extent it refers to “man” and “wife” and further reformulate that section to read “and each of the parties shall say to the other in the presence of witnesses ‘I call upon these persons here present to witness that I (AB) do take thee (BC) to be my lawfully wedded wife/husband/spouse’.” Thirdly in the same vein, section 23 (4) of the Marriage Act should be reformulated to “I (AB) do take thee (CD) to be my lawfully wedded wife/husband/spouse”. And fourthly because the Matrimonial Clauses Act reflects the common law definition of marriage, and for the reasons stated, it is appropriate for the court to declare section 15 (c) of the Act inoperative.
2017. May 6. Lawyer Mark Pettingill hailed yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage as a victory for human rights in Bermuda. Describing Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons’ ruling as “everything we could have wanted, and more”, Mr Pettingill said that the successful outcome of the case was a major milestone for the country. “I cried on Thursday night when I read the draft judgment,” he told The Royal Gazette. “It’s been very emotional. Whatever I have done in my career, this is hands down the highlight. I have been an advocate of human rights and equality my whole life and this has very much been a human journey for me. It is one of those things that we could not have done without all the people that took part in the case and supported us from my junior Grant Spurling, to Rod Attride-Stirling, who brought so much to the table, to Shawn Crockwell and all the team at Chancery Legal. This discussion has been healthy for the country and I hope we can now embrace the judgment, embrace love and peace and move forward.” Lawyer Rod Attride-Stirling, who acted for the Human Rights Commission during the case, lamented that the legislature had not acted on the issue of same-sex marriage to put the issue beyond doubt. “It is also a matter of great shame that the Attorney-General fought the case in the manner in which it was fought, ignoring the Bermudian cases on the proper interpretation of the Human Rights Act,” Mr Attride-Stirling said. “This should not have been so. I am glad to see that the Bermuda court has followed the courts, first of South Africa, which decided this issue in 2005, and then the United States which followed suit in 2015. The message of hate and exclusion has been rejected. Human rights means human rights for all humans. Equally. No one is excluded. Gays who want to marry can now do so. “Bermuda owes a huge debt of gratitude to the two brave young men who brought this action, Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche. They will always be remembered as heroes of the human rights movement.”
2017. May 6. The controversial issue of same-sex marriage finally came under the legal spotlight in the island’s Supreme Court at the beginning of this year. Over three days of judicial review proceedings, lawyers representing Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé Greg DeRoche and the Bermuda Government clashed over the statutory interpretation of legislation governing marriage. Meanwhile, the Human Rights Commission and Preserve Marriage were also given the chance to voice their opinions in court on the hotly debated topic. Mark Pettingill, acting for the couple, urged the court to write the final chapter in the protection of gay rights in Bermuda. He said the couple’s case encapsulates “the right to happiness, the right of all people to seek love and happiness”. Mr Pettingill added: “The applicants say that religious arguments bear no relevance on civil contractual marriage. This is a matter of statutory interpretation. “It is time for the courts, fully armed with the legal protection of the Human Rights Act, to write the final chapter in the protection of the rights of gay people of secular orientation and all the rights that everyone enjoys to be the same.” But the Government’s lawyer, Deputy Solicitor-General Shakira Dill-Francois, told the court that the Registrar-General could not post marriage banns for gay couples because such unions are null and void under Bermuda’s existing laws. She said that under section 33 of the Marriage Act 1944, it was an offence for the Registrar to authorise a marriage, knowing it was void. She added the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974, in section 15, clearly sets out the grounds on which a marriage was void, including if “the parties are not respectively male and female”. Adding that the two pieces of legislation had to be read and understood together, Ms Dill-Francois asked: “Why would the Registrar proceed to register a marriage that is, in fact, void?” Preserve Marriage, which has campaigned to maintain marriage as between a man and a woman, and the Human Rights Commission were allowed to join the proceedings as “interveners”. Preserve Marriage was represented by lawyer Delroy Duncan, who argued that changing the law on same-sex marriage could open the door for “multiple-partner marriages” on the island. “We have to ask ourselves whether this legislation is permissive of such marriages or whether or not what you are being asked to do could open the door to multiple-partner marriages,” he said. Mr Duncan maintained that Parliament must decide on the issue of same-sex marriage “through the ballot box”.
2017. May 5. The Rainbow Alliance declared yesterday’s landmark gay marriage ruling a victory for all same-gender loving people in Bermuda. Saluting Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche for their courage in taking on the Bermuda Government at the risk of being ostracized by the community, the Alliance issued a statement saying “love always wins”. The organisation also released a comment from Mr Godwin, a Bermudian, and his Canadian fiancé Mr DeRoche, saying they hope the result gives more people courage to speak up or come out. The Alliance said it was “overwhelmed with joy” at the conclusion of the historic ruling. We applaud the landmark decision by Justice Charles-Etta Simmons. History has been made and love has won. This ruling is not only a victory for a brave young couple willing to fight for their love, Winston Godwin and his fiancé Greg DeRoche, this ruling is a victory for all same-gender loving people in Bermuda. In this decision, the courts have affirmed that the love between two consenting adults is worth protecting with law, regardless of gender. This outcome ensures that same-gender couples can enjoy the same legal protections as heterosexual spouses do. This outcome preserves the notion that love is the greatest force of all.” It quoted Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche as saying: “We appreciate all the positive affirmations and support. This has been a long process, but well worth the fight. Hopefully this brings forward hope and courage for those who were/are afraid to speak up or come out. This is a moment we are proud of and will never forget. This outcome could not be possible if it were not for the courageous decision of Winston to take on the government of his home and risk being ostracized by his community for the sake of love. We applaud Winston and Greg, the legal team that supported this challenge, and the many campaigners that have over the years fought for increased human rights, dignity, and respect of LGBTQ people. There is so much more work to be done, but today, we celebrate that love always wins.”
2017. May 5. A gay couple have won a landmark legal ruling that paves the way for same-sex marriage in Bermuda. Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, embarked on their fight for equal rights after the Registrar-General rejected their application to marry on the island. They took their case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Human Rights Act took primacy in Bermuda and protected their right to marry. Yesterday a packed courtroom in the Dame Lois Browne-Evans Building erupted into spontaneous applause after Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons ruled in the couple’s favour. “The common law definition of marriage, that marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, and its reflection in the Marriage Act section 24 and the Matrimonial Clauses Act section 15 (c) are inconsistent with the provisions of the Human Rights Act as they constitute deliberate different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation,” Mrs Justice Simmons said. “In so doing the common law discriminates against same-sex couples by excluding them from marriage and more broadly speaking the institution of marriage. On the facts of this case the applicants were discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation when the Registrar refused to process their notice of intended marriage. Same-sex couples denied access to marriage laws and entry into the institution of marriage have been denied what the Human Rights Commission terms a “basket of goods”, that is rights of a spouse contained in numerous enactments of Parliament.” The applicants are entitled to an Order of Mandamus compelling the Registrar to act in accordance with the requirements of the Marriage Act and a Declaration that same-sex couples are entitled to be married under the Marriage Act 1944.” Mr Godwin described the ruling as a big step in the right direction and told The Royal Gazette that he and Mr DeRoche would be resubmitting their application to marry to the Registrar-General “within days. It has been a long time coming. This ruling, although it was in our favour ... there is still so much more to do in Bermuda. The ruling today is more than me and pieces of paper; it’s more than any of that, it is what it means for Bermuda moving forward. Now we can begin to fix some of these issues. People are going to have their opinions about this and that is OK. I am not here to change people’s opinions or how they think. I just want them to respect me and my relationship and my marriage that will happen here. This is a big step in the right direction and I cannot thank my legal team and my supporters enough. Hopefully, this brings forward hope and courage for those who were or are afraid to speak up or come out. This is a moment we are proud of and will never forget.” Meanwhile, yesterday’s 48-page judgment was welcomed by the Rainbow Alliance who declared the ruling as victory for all same-gender loving people in Bermuda. The group said “history has been made and love has won”. Senator Jeff Baron, the Minister of National Security, added: “Today’s ruling affirms that equality is for all — regardless of who you love, what you look like or who you pray to. And equality, when it’s real, isn’t conditional. Let’s acknowledge that there’s a tremendous amount of work to do, right here at home, to move barriers and heal our community. Let’s keep working together, let’s build this community of supporters and champions for equality. And despite hurtful attacks let us reach across and engage the most sceptical citizens and show them that Bermudian values; values of love, respect and inclusiveness, can be found in every corner of this island.” However, Preserve Marriage labeled the ruling as an attack on traditional values, claiming it has worsened the divide in Bermuda. The group stated: “Today a single judge, Justice Charles-Etta Simmons, of the Supreme Court of Bermuda has decided to redefine the institution of marriage. By imposing this judgment, the court has ruled against many in the community of Bermuda.” Mrs Justice Simmons noted that the Bermuda courts had already struck down legislation that discriminated against a same-sex male couple from adopting a child and treated a non-Bermudian same-sex partner of a Bermudian differently from a non-Bermudian opposite-sex partner of a Bermudian. The ruling states: “Against the legal, social and cultural back drop of changing attitudes regarding same-sex relationships and sexual orientation it is fair to say that notions such as marriage or the institution of marriage being predicated upon heterosexual procreation and marriage being the main and most effective means of rearing healthy, happy and well-adjusted children, to borrow a phrase from the Chief Justice, have been turned on their heads. “Their historic and insular perspective as reflected in the common law definition of marriage is out of step with the reality of Bermuda in the 20th century. "
2017. February 2. Changing the law on same-sex marriage could open the door for “multiple partner marriages” on the island, lawyer Delroy Duncan told a packed Supreme Court yesterday. Mr Duncan, representing the charity Preserve Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, said: “I say this not mockingly or jokingly.” He noted that four Supreme Court justices in the United States had raised such concerns when same-sex marriage was made legal there. “We have to ask ourselves whether this legislation is permissive of such marriages or whether or not what you are being asked to do could open the door to multiple partner marriages.” He said the common-law definition of marriage was that it was between a man and a woman, and the Registrar-General had to judge each marriage application in that context. Mr Duncan was speaking on the third day of a case brought by Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche. The couple are fighting for the right to wed on the island and claim their human rights have been breached by the Registrar’s refusal to post their marriage banns. They are seeking an order from the Supreme Court to compel the Registrar to post their marriage banns, as well as issue a declaration that same-sex couples are entitled to wed here. The civil proceedings concluded yesterday, with Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons expected to deliver her ruling within the next six weeks. Mr Duncan started the day by arguing Parliament must decide on the issue of same-sex marriage “through the ballot box”. He said the Bermuda Supreme Court was being asked to become only the second court in the world — after the United States — to decide the matter through the courts, rather than the legislature. “There is no doubt that this is a great and important moment in the history of this country. There is no doubt that we need to grapple with the issues in this case with compassion, fairness and understanding for both sides of the aisle.” He said his clients held no “ill will” for members of the same-sex community and were intervening in the case owing to strongly held beliefs on the meaning of marriage. “The court is being asked to redefine marriage for the purposes of those who seek same-sex marriage,” Mr Duncan said. “This court is facing a cultural challenge of monumental proportions. That challenge has reared its head in the guise of this application.” He cited Bermuda’s Caribbean roots and said a “cultural clash” was at the heart of the marriage equality debate. Mr Duncan cautioned that there would be “no reason” why same-sex couples could not request a religious wedding if the judge amended the legislation to make such unions legal, questioning whether churches would have legal protection allowing them to refuse such requests. Mr Duncan said the law on this issue needed to be developed in an orderly way — by legislators, rather than “piecemeal” in the courts — to “ensure that the protection is upfront for the religious community”. The couple’s case hinges, in part, on the Human Rights Act prohibiting discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation. The plaintiffs say the Registrar’s marriage duties constitute a service, as defined by the Act, while the Government has argued that not to be the case. Mr Duncan said that the Registrar, in making a determination on marriage, was carrying out a function that only a government official could do. He questioned if the court would have the power to fulfil the plaintiff’s request, saying that while allowing same-sex and unmarried couples to adopt required a simple striking out of marriage, allowing same-sex marriage would require more comprehensive changes in the law. He also took aim at the Human Rights Commission’s comparison of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage, saying that some found the comparison offensive. Responding, lawyer Mark Pettingill, representing the plaintiffs, said that Mr Duncan had repeatedly “picked the plums from the duff” by relying on dissenting opinions in his arguments rather than those in the majority. He argued that the rights of a same-sex couple to marry would not interfere with the rights of people to practise their religion, saying the two can and should coexist. The courtroom at the Dame Lois Browne-Evans building was packed to capacity, with members of the public having to sit in areas normally reserved for jurors, witnesses and the media. Those watching the case included Mr Godwin, Opposition MPs Wayne Furbert and Kim Wilson, and gay rights activist Mark Anderson. The Government is represented by Deputy Solicitor-General Shakira Dill-Francois. Preserve Marriage is an intervener in the case, as is the Human Rights Commission, represented by Rod Attride-Stirling.
2017. February 1. The Registrar-General cannot post marriage banns for gay couples because such unions are null and void under Bermuda’s existing laws, a court heard yesterday. Deputy Solicitor-General Shakira Dill-Francois, representing the Bermuda Government in a civil action brought against it by a same-sex couple, told a Supreme Court hearing that under section 33 of the Marriage Act 1944 it was an offence for the Registrar to authorize a marriage, knowing it was void. She said the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974, in section 15, clearly set out the grounds on which a marriage was void, including if “the parties are not respectively male and female. Why would the Registrar proceed to register a marriage that is, in fact, void?” asked Ms Dill-Francois, adding that the two pieces of legislation had to be read and understood together. Ms Dill-Francois was giving her submissions on the second day of a case brought by Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, who are represented by former Attorney-General Mark Pettingill. The couple want the right to marry on the island and are seeking an order from the Supreme Court to compel the Registrar to post their marriage banns, as well as issue a declaration that same-sex couples are entitled to wed here. Mr Pettingill told Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons on Monday that the Human Rights Act 1981, which bans discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services, had primacy over all other laws. But Ms Dill-Francois said it was important to consider the intent of legislators when they amended the Human Rights Act in 2013 to include sexual orientation in the list of protected classes. Quoting from Hansard, the official parliamentary transcript, she read comments made in the House of Assembly by the Attorney-General at the time: Mr Pettingill. He had told MPs: “This government considers marriage to be between a man and a woman only. This government will not be issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples.” In court yesterday, Mr Pettingill got to his feet to acknowledge that it was he who was being quoted but he asked Ms Dill-Francois, to read on to include a further remark he made in Parliament on the subject of same-sex marriage: “It’s a different debate for a different day.” Ms Dill-Francois said: “I’m not reading this section to in any way cast aspersions on my learned friend. The reason I am reading it is to show what the purpose of the amendment was for.” She added: “It’s the duty of the court to accept the purposes decided on by Parliament.” The Deputy Solicitor-General argued that posting marriage banns and issuing marriage licences was not a “service” as defined by the Human Rights Act. Ms Dill-Francois said the Act applied to civil servants as it applied to “acts done by private persons” but that was limited and did not include functions carried out by the Government only. “Parliament did not intend for governmental functions to be considered services,” she insisted. Earlier, the court heard from Rod Attride-Stirling, representing the Human Rights Commission as an intervener in the case. He recalled comments made by former Progressive Labour Party leader Dame Lois Browne-Evans when the Stubbs Bill was passed to decriminalize sexual acts between men: “Human rights are for all people.” Mr Attride-Stirling asked: “What would Dame Lois say about this case? I think it’s clear.” He turned to the United Kingdom and said since same-sex marriage was introduced there, “nothing happened, other than people in love got married”. The former HRC chairman spoke about South Africa, where gay marriage was made legal in 2006. He said the country knew plenty about racial discrimination and it had deemed racial and sexual orientation discrimination as “the same thing”. His comments drew murmurs of disapproval from several people sitting in the public gallery, with one person saying “nonsense!” and another adding: “I was born black.” Mr Attride-Stirling said: “In Bermuda, we tend to have a discriminatory view of homosexuals. Through time and education, we have evolved. Not everyone has evolved at the same pace.” He suggested MPs had “passed the buck” on the issue by leaving it for the courts to decide and acknowledged the judge had a difficult task ahead. He noted comments made by Donald Trump in the presidential election about appointing judges to reverse marriage equality in the United States. Mr Attride-Stirling noted a day earlier that three previous Supreme Court judgments concluded that government-only functions were “services” as defined by the Human Rights Act, He said an amendment to that Act passed by Parliament in 2016 “carved out” 28 exceptions, and the Registrar’s marriage licensing duties were not included in the exceptions, so clearly fell within its ambit. Ultimately, he said, the Bermuda courts would be invited to “take either the Trump view of same-sex marriage or the [Nelson] Mandela view”. He said the rights of children needed to be considered because while it was legal for children to be adopted by same-sex couples in Bermuda, those children were now “being prejudiced [against] because they don’t have the right to have two married parents and the rights that are associated with them”. The lawyer said if there was a case where one partner was Bermudian and the other foreign and the Bermudian died, the foreign partner could be made to leave the island. He referenced the controversy surrounding the Reverend Nicholas Tweed, who has a Bermudian daughter, but is separated from his Bermudian wife and has had a work-permit renewal refused, meaning he may have to leave the island. Mr Attride-Stirling said at least in Mr Tweed’s case, he could have chosen to stay married, adding: “Gay couples don’t have that ability.” The case continues tomorrow at 9.30am in Court Four of the Dame Lois Browne-Evans building.
2017. January 30. The lawyer for a gay couple fighting for the right to marry in Bermuda has urged the court to write the final chapter in the protection of gay rights. Mark Pettingill, acting on behalf of Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, told the Supreme Court that the Human Rights Act took primacy in Bermuda and protected his clients’ rights to marry. Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche have brought a civil case against the Registrar-General for rejecting their application to marry. They are seeking an order from the Supreme Court to compel the Registrar to post their marriage bans, in accordance with the Marriage Act. They also want a declaration that same-sex couples are entitled to be married under that law. This morning, Mr Pettingill addressed Judge Charles-Etta Simmons before a packed courtroom of more than 60 people at the beginning of the case. He said the case encapsulates “the right to happiness, the right of all people to seek love and happiness”, adding: “The applicants say that religious arguments bear no relevance on civil contractual marriage. This is a matter of statutory interpretation.” In his opening address, Mr Pettingill also questioned why the Attorney-General and the Minister of Home Affairs were named as respondents in the case. “I don’t understand how the respondents are even here,” he said. “There are three respondents listed: one [the Registrar-General] has withdrawn his position, and the other two have supported the applicant’s position. I understand it’s politics and a lot of heads can get stuck in the sand but this is a court of law. These two respondents [the Attorney-General and Minister of Home Affairs] objected and voted against provisions that would override the primacy of the Human Rights Act. Why are we here?” Describing the referendum on same-sex marriage and civil unions as “folly” Mr Pettingill added: “It’s a minority rights issue. It is time for the courts fully armed with the legal protection of the Human Rights Act to write the final chapter in the protection of the rights of gay people of secular orientation and all the rights that everyone enjoys to be the same.” Mr Godwin, who was in court for today’s proceedings, wore a T-shirt saying “Some dudes marry dudes. Get over it.” Mr Pettingill insisted that the primacy of the Human Rights Act protected his clients’ right not to be discriminated against on the basis of their sex or sexual orientation. He said: “It is not just about Bermuda, it is about right thinking countries and people now at least embracing this concept, and in embracing this concept we cannot in Bermuda operate in a vacuum or create artificial arguments to obviate the position in human rights. The law is clear.” Preserve Marriage, which has campaigned to maintain marriage as between a man and a woman, has been allowed to join the case as an “intervener” in the proceedings. The group is represented by Delroy Duncan, and the defendant by the Attorney-General’s Chambers. The case, which is expected to last several days, is taking place in Court Four of the Dame Lois Browne-Evans building before Judge Charles-Etta Simmons. Those in attendance include the Progressive Labour Party MP Wayne Furbert, an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage, and Tony Brannon, who has been at the forefront of the campaign in favour.
2017. January 30. Wayne Furbert has said he will bring amendments solidifying marriage as between a man and a woman back to the House of Assembly as the debate over same-sex marriage prepares to return to the courts. Speaking last night at a prayer rally organised by Preserve Marriage on the eve of a court hearing on the subject of same-sex marriage, the Progressive Labour Party MP said he would continue to push the amendments forward. “I don’t know what the courts will do, but I will bring it back in June,” he said to applause. Urging the hundreds at the rally to speak to their representatives in the House about their views, he said: “Don’t give up the fight. Don’t think this is over. The battle is not over.” Mr Furbert originally tabled amendments to the Human Rights Act to limit marriage as between a man and a woman last year. The amendments were approved by the House of Assembly, but later rejected by the Senate by a vote of six to five. The comments came less than 24 hours before Bermudian Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé, Greg DeRoche, are set to appear before the courts to fight for same-sex marriage. The couple have brought a civil case against the Registrar-General for rejecting their application to marry, claiming the refusal breaches the Human Rights Act. They are seeking an order from the Supreme court to compel the Registrar to post their marriage bans, in accordance with the Marriage Act. They also want a declaration that same-sex couples are entitled to be married under that law. Preserve Marriage, which has campaigned to maintain marriage as between a man and a woman, has been allowed to join the case as an “intervener” in the proceedings. Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche are represented by Mark Pettingill, with the Attorney-General’s Chambers for the defendant. Speaking last night, Mr Pettingill said that the case was expected to last several days in court as both sides present their arguments, stating the courts might not make a final decision this week. “We are saying that as the law stands it’s lawful for same sex couples to seek a marriage licence,” he said. “We have a very strong, arguable case on the face of the law.” While a ruling in the favour of his clients would open the door for other same-sex couples to apply for marriage licences, he said he would potentially seek an appeal if the decision goes against his clients.
2016. October 25. A judge has ruled that Preserve Marriage will be able to play a part in an upcoming judicial review case about same-sex marriage. Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons said that the charity, which opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds, could join the Human Rights Commission as an “intervener” in the proceedings that will begin in December. Mrs Justice Simmons said the group had a “legitimate interest” in the matter, but added that the court maintained the jurisdiction to control its proceedings and stop “unnecessary and irrelevant” points being made. The proceedings have been brought by gay couple Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche against the Registrar-General for refusing to marry them on the grounds of their sexual orientation. The pair claim the Registrar’s refusal breaches the Human Rights Act and they are seeking an order from the Supreme Court to compel him to post their marriage banns, in accordance with the Marriage Act. They also want a declaration that same-sex couples are entitled to be married under that law. Yesterday morning Delroy Duncan, representing Preserve Marriage, said he had been instructed not to apply for costs despite the fact the group had won its application to take part in the proceedings. Last week Mr Duncan told the court: “Let’s make this what it is; it’s a national debate where interested parties with a real and legitimate interest in the outcome should be permitted to have their say.” Mark Pettingill, representing Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche, dismissed the argument put forward by Preserve Marriage’s lawyer, saying: “We are dealing with a narrow issue; a contracted marriage before a registrar. They [Preserve Marriage] are not a proper party to assist the court in the legal issue it must determine.” Mr Pettingill also made an application for the charity to provide “security of costs” for the proceedings if it was allowed to be involved. He claimed Preserve Marriage’s legal fees were being funded by “third parties” and said the identities of those third parties should be revealed. But yesterday in court Mrs Justice Simmons said that there was no provision in law for the security of costs order to be made against an intervener. The substantive Judicial Review hearing has been set down to take place on December 8, 9 and 12.
2016. October 19. Opponents of same-sex marriage have been “blacklisted” by businesses and fear repercussions from the LGBT community for their views, a court heard yesterday. Delroy Duncan, lawyer for Preserve Marriage, made the claim in the Supreme Court, as he argued that the charity should not have to put up the costs for civil proceedings which it wishes to join as an interested party, nor reveal the identity of its donors. The proceedings were brought by gay couple Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche against the Registrar-General for refusing to marry them on the grounds of their sexual orientation. The pair claim the Registrar’s refusal breaches the Human Rights Act and they are seeking an order from the Supreme Court to compel him to post their marriage banns, in accordance with the Marriage Act. They also want a declaration that same-sex couples are entitled to be married under that law. The two men’s Judicial Review application is set to begin next Monday and yesterday’s hearing considered whether Preserve Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions on religious grounds, should be allowed to take part in the proceedings. At the end of the hearing, Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons reserved judgment on Preserve Marriage’s application, saying she expected to make a ruling later in the week and that the trial could possibly still go ahead on Monday. Mr Duncan told the court: “Let’s make this what it is; it’s a national debate where interested parties with a real and legitimate interest in the outcome should be permitted to have their say.” But Mark Pettingill, representing Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche, dismissed the argument put forward by Preserve Marriage’s lawyer, saying: “We are dealing with a narrow issue; a contracted marriage before a registrar. They [Preserve Marriage] are not a proper party to assist the court in the legal issue it must determine.” Mr Pettingill also made an application for the charity to provide “security of costs” for the proceedings if it was allowed to be involved. He claimed Preserve Marriage’s legal fees were being funded by “third parties” and said the identities of those third parties should be revealed. But Mr Duncan said: “Members of Preserve Marriage who have publicly come out opposing same-sex marriage and civil unions have been blacklisted by businesses.” Mr Duncan added that disclosing the identity of donors would “invade the privacy of members of this community who support Preserve Marriage” and who feared “repercussions” from the LGBT community. He referred to a letter he had received from Preserve Marriage member Laura Dowling, a chiropractor, who told him members of the charity’s action team had been blacklisted and denied access to certain venues. “Her practice has been affected as well,” he said. “This is real. This is what’s going on in this case. The public square in Bermuda should be for everybody to have a say in matters that affect or potentially affect their interests.” Former Attorney-General Mr Pettingill argued that Preserve Marriage’s involvement would significantly extend the proceedings and that wasn’t fair on his clients. He said the charity had filed “voluminous” submissions which were not relevant to the “narrow issue” at hand and which he did not plan to read. “This is not a public debate,” the One Bermuda Alliance backbencher said. “This is not Speakers’ Corner. This is not a religious debate.” He suggested those represented by Mr Duncan were “bigots”, a phrase Preserve Marriage’s lawyer described as “very unfortunate”. Mr Pettingill said: “All that word means is they are opposed to a position somebody else has.” But Mrs Justice Simmons, who was hearing the arguments, said: “I think it’s a far more loaded word than that.” The Human Rights Commission is an intervener in the case and its lawyer, Rod Attride-Stirling, complained that Preserve Marriage had submitted evidence late on Monday and early yesterday, instead of giving counsel at least two days to consider it. “It’s impossible for us to state a considered position in relation to the application because we have not had a proper opportunity to consider the evidence,” Mr Attride-Stirling said. “[The submission] makes scandalous and false statements that my clients want to respond to correct the record. That evidence, quite frankly, should be struck out.” He described some of the material as “outrageous”, adding that some statements were false and others were “heavily disingenuous. It’s totally inappropriate that this sort of evidence should be used during this hearing. We have had no opportunity to respond.” Mr Duncan denied the evidence contained false statements. He said two countries which had settled the matter of same-sex marriage through the courts — the United States and South Africa — had allowed submissions from groups such as Preserve Marriage. And he said Mr Pettingill was “on public record” — in The Royal Gazette — as providing his services free of charge to Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche, so the cost of the proceedings would not impact them. Mr Pettingill said he was not on the court record as providing his services pro bono and it was not the case. Mr Godwin’s and Mr DeRoche’s writ against the Registrar was filed days after a referendum on same-sex marriage and civil unions. The ballot was deemed unanswered because of low voter turnout. The Government has said it will defend the legal case on the grounds that a marriage service is not a service covered by the Human Rights Act. In his refusal letter to the couple, the Registrar cited the Matrimonial Causes Act, section 15 of which says a marriage is void if the parties are not male and female.
2016. September 16. Government lawyers will argue in court that the Registrar-General was right to refuse to marry a gay couple because marriage is not a “service” as defined in the Human Rights Act. Acting Solicitor-General Norman MacDonald told a Supreme Court hearing yesterday that the Bermuda Government would contest a legal bid by Bermudian Winston Godwin and his fiancé Greg DeRoche to have the Registrar’s decision overturned. The couple, represented by former Attorney-General Mark Pettingill, claim the Registrar breached the Human Rights Act by refusing to process their marriage application in July. The Act outlaws denying “goods, facilities or services” based on a person’s sexual orientation and Mr Pettingill, in his application to the court, said the Registrar had failed in his duties as the Registrar of Marriages. But Mr MacDonald told Chief Justice Ian Kawaley: “It’s the Crown’s position that the marriage service is not a service that is covered by the Human Rights Act.” Mr Pettingill had earlier told the court a full hearing on the issue should be held as soon as possible. “This is a human rights matter and I respectfully submit that it’s gone on too long and one day [more] on a human rights issue is too long, where there’s a certain segment of society which is not being allowed its fundamental human rights,” said the lawyer and government backbencher. “That’s something that must be addressed in earnest. It is clear as a pikestaff that services must be allowed for all people." All of this is . . . not convoluted. I would urge upon the court that we are ready to go today. I’d be more than happy; let’s argue it today.” Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche are seeking an order of mandamus from the Supreme Court which would compel the Registrar to act in accordance with the Marriage Act and post their marriage banns. They also want a declaration that same-sex couples are entitled to be married under that law. Mr Pettingill likened their application for judicial review to an urgent writ of habeas corpus, seeking to have a person released from custody. “I put it in the same bracket,” he told the court, adding: “This issue should be clarified and heard in short order.” Mr MacDonald asked for 21 days to file a reply affidavit and for any court hearing to happen in November or December. He said: “The issue is not clear as a pikestaff, as he says.” Mr Justice Kawaley said he would give the Attorney-General’s Chambers 14 days to file its affidavit, adding that the full hearing should take place in October on a date to be set. Mr Godwin and Mr DeRoche, who are being represented pro bono by Mr Pettingill, filed their civil suit just days after the June 23 referendum on same-sex relationships, when the turnout was less than 50 per cent and the questions were deemed unanswered. Of those who voted, 69 per cent were against same-sex marriage and 63 per cent were against same-sex civil unions. If the couple’s case is heard next month, a decision from the court could come before MPs return to Parliament on November 4.
2016. September 1. The number of venues that civil marriage ceremonies can be conducted has been expanded by the Registry General with the passing of the Marriage Amendment Act 2016. Under the Marriage Act 1944, civil marriage ceremonies were only permitted to be conducted in the Registrar’s office. The Ministry of Home Affairs has advised that marriages contracted before the Registrar General can now be held at alternate approved locations which include: Admiralty House Park, Arboretum, Astwood Park, Blue Hole Hill Park, Botanical Gardens, Chaplin Bay, Church Bay, Clocktower Mall Dockyard, Devonshire Bay Park, Elbow Beach (the public beach as accessed from Tribe Road 4B Paget), Ferry Point Park, Fort St. Catherine beach, Great Head Park, Gibbs Hill Lighthouse Park, Horseshoe Bay, John Smith’s Bay, Jobson’s Cove, Scaur Hill Fort Park, Shelly Bay beach, Somerset Long Bay, Spanish Point Park, Stonehole Bay, St. David’s Lighthouse Park, Tobacco Bay, Victualling Yard in Dockyard, and Warwick Long Bay. Parties wishing to contract marriage in the presence of the Registrar for these venues must submit the fee of $450 to the Registry General, at least 14 days prior to the proposed date of marriage. The fee is in addition to $368 fee which is required to be submitted with the Notice of Intended Marriage Application form. A Ministry of Home Affairs spokeswoman said: “The onus is on the parties to be wed to obtain written permission from the owner or occupier of the venue (eg Wedco or Ministry of Public Works) and notify the Registrar accordingly of the date. The time will be confirmed by Registry General staff. In addition parties are responsible for arranging the logistics of set-up and any other features related to the wedding. The Registry General Office will only be responsible for providing a table, chair and relevant documents for signature. In the event of inclement weather, prohibiting an outdoor wedding, the alternate venue for the marriage will be the Registry General.” In such cases, the marriage ceremony fee will be reduced to $245 which is the fee applicable to marriages conducted within the Registry General. For more information on fees associated with civil marriage ceremonies visit https://www.gov.bm/content/apply-marriage-licence).
2016. August 31. A gay Bermudian and his fiancé have been granted leave to argue in the Supreme Court that they should be allowed to wed on the island. Winston Godwin and Greg DeRoche, who live in Toronto, had their application to marry rejected by the Registrar-General last month and their lawyer Mark Pettingill sought leave to apply for a judicial review of the decision. Mr Pettingill told The Royal Gazette yesterday: “We are pleased but not surprised that the court has granted leave and look forward to the full hearing of this important human rights issue. I think the entire gay community and all right-thinking people generally will be supportive of it and want to see it pursued.” The Government backbencher, who is providing his services pro bono to the couple, said the couple’s application would be an important test case for the island and he was now preparing his case for when the hearing takes place. The former Attorney-General filed a writ on behalf of the couple with the Supreme Court in July, backed up by affidavits from Mr Godwin and Mr De Roche. The action seeks to have a judge overturn the refusal of the Registrar-General to process the marriage application, in accordance with the Marriage Act 1944, and issue an order requiring him to do so. The couple claim the Registrar has failed in his duties and should be made to act in accordance with the Marriage Act, on the grounds that it is discriminatory under the Human Rights Act for him to refuse to process the application based on their sexual orientation. In his refusal letter, the Registrar cited the Matrimonial Causes Act, section 15 of which says a marriage is void if the parties are not male and female.
2016. July 14. Chief Justice Ian Kawaley has released a full judgment explaining why he didn’t stop the referendum on same-sex relationships from going ahead despite it being held in a “somewhat shabby and shambolic fashion”. The 44-page verdict expands on Mr Justice Kawaley’s reasons for rejecting a legal bid by the Centre for Justice to stop the June 23 referendum or postpone it to a later date. He wrote that the referendum could be held without offending the Constitution or the Human Rights Act and though it would “likely interfere with some freedom of expression and freedom of association rights” it was not to the extent that merited stopping it from happening altogether. “In the context of deciding whether the referendum . . . should or should not be restrained, the rule of law, in fact, required the court to respect the fact that political judgments are for politicians, not judges, to make. There is room for judicial activism when entertaining applications to enforce statutory human rights. There is a need for judicial restraint when courts are invited to thwart the lawfully articulated will of Parliament.” He added it would be inconsistent with established principles governing the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature for the “judiciary to trespass on the proper domain of the executive and judicial branches of government”; to do so, he said, would be unconstitutional. Elsewhere in the judgment, the Chief Justice said the application for judicial review by the Centre of Justice “raised complicated issues of considerable public importance which were argued and decided within a necessarily compressed timeframe”. The referendum asked voters if they were in favour of same-sex marriage and if they were in favour of same-sex civil unions. The turnout for the non-binding ballot was 46.89 per cent and, of those who voted, 69 per cent were against same-sex marriage and 63 per cent were against civil unions. Mr Justice Kawaley described the referendum as being “organised in a somewhat shabby and shambolic fashion with little or no apparent regard for good referendum practice” and suggested the Premier should have set up a committee to oversee how it was run. But in relation to the Centre’s claim that it was “repugnant to certain fundamental rights of individuals at common law,” he concluded there was no reason for the courts to intervene to stop it. “Bermuda’s Parliament is competent to override common law rights by clearly drafted legislation, subject to three important caveats,” he wrote. The caveats, he said, were that Parliament’s law making powers were subject to the Constitution, could not be exercised in a way which conflicted with any UK laws which extend to Bermuda and “cannot effectively be exercised in a way with conflicts with the Human Rights Act 1981, unless Parliament expressly provides that the relevant law is not subject to the primacy provisions of the 1981 Act”. He said it was open to any interested party to challenge the referendum results. The judgment refers to an earlier observation made by the Chief Justice that “Bermuda appears to be under a positive international law duty under article of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) to create some coherent legal framework for the recognition of same-sex relationships formed by Bermudians”. Mr Justice Kawaley said those observations formed no part of his decision in the Bermuda Bred Company case, in which he ordered that same-sex partners of Bermudians be given the same immigration and employment rights as heterosexual spouses, and which was “solely concerned with the Bermuda domestic law position”.
2016. July 13. Finance minister and Deputy Premier Bob Richards believes gay couples should have all the same legal rights as heterosexual spouses — but they should not be granted the right to marry. Mr Richards is one of several One Bermuda Alliance politicians to give his opinion on same-sex marriage following a successful vote to amend the Human Rights Act to solidify marriage as being between a man and a woman. National security minister Senator Jeffrey Baron, MP Suzann Roberts Holshouser and MP Mark Pettingill all gave varying views on the outcome of the vote and the issue of same-sex marriage in Bermuda. Mr Richards voted for the amendment, brought by Progressive Labour Party MP Wayne Furbert, to go ahead but he has been a vocal supporter of civil unions in the past. He acknowledged that civil unions do not grant equal rights but said that was something that could be ironed out on in the future. Mr Richards told The Royal Gazette: “Marriage is intrinsically, in its very nature, between a man and a woman and I don’t think it can be reformed into something it is not. This is not a religious standpoint — a lot of people have an opinion as it relates to religion. I am a Christian, I go to church. You look in the bible and it is replete with examples of people being married who aren’t Christian. Look at the world we have today there are not just Christians . . . every religion, every culture has marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage is a construct by the human species to do two things — to obey the dictates of nature, to procreate, and to socialize children. That is what marriage is about when you step back and look at it in totality.” Mr Richards added that except for the right to be granted marital status, same-sex couples should have no fewer rights. “I think that gay couples should have all of the rights and privileges provided under law for married couples. I don’t want to deny them those legal structures. Civil union does get us there to a certain extent but those things can be fixed. We haven’t even got to civil unions yet so let’s not run before we can walk. I am disappointed it didn’t get to civil unions. I have always been of the opinion that gay people should have their civil rights. We live in a pluralistic society and we have to take account for people that are different from us and I think that is key. It is who we are as humans and I believe I am maybe the only person in my party with this point of view.” The amendment is yet to be approved by the Senate and will then have to be signed off by the Governor. OBA senator and Minister of National Senator Baron has already said that he intends to vote against the amendments in the Senate on Thursday, saying: “I respect the fact there are strong opinions on this issue. In my view, human rights are indivisible and this is an issue of human rights. Every single Bermudian and persons who call Bermuda home — gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, transgender — every one of them deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of our laws and in the eyes of our diverse society. It is, for me, really that simple. I support same sex marriage and as I have previously stated, will vote against the bill passed in the House when it comes before the Senate”. Ms Roberts-Holshouser could not vote in the House on Friday night as she was Acting Speaker, but told this newspaper she would not have supported the amendment. “I certainly would have voted against the bill,” she said. “I do not understand how individuals are able to be selective in what one would discriminate against. You can’t be selective and it is very sad. I certainly would have voted against the bill to change the Human Rights Act, absolutely. One of the things that is necessary to understand is that it was a conscience vote and as a result you have to respect one another. The one thing that is beneficial about the One Bermuda Alliance is the ability to recognise and accept the fact that people think differently and we have a right to think differently and have a responsibility to not follow like sheep. We are a group of individuals who are different and diversified.” Mr Pettingill has been an active supporter of same-sex marriage and believes that, regardless of whether the amendment is ultimately approved, there could be a constitutional argument to overrule the decision. He said: “The bill has constitutional issues that clearly prevent it from being valid. The Senate, in properly performing its function, should address that.”
2016. July 13. A young Bermudian told yesterday how he and his fiancé wanted to help “make a difference” by becoming the first gay couple to argue in court for the right to marry here. Winston Godwin, 26, who grew up in Sandys and now lives in Toronto, told The Royal Gazette: “This is something that can impact and affect so many people in a positive way. I would love to be able to come back to Bermuda and work and contribute to a place that has given me so much. Unfortunately, as it stands, it’s one of those things that’s just not possible at the moment. I would just like to have our marriage recognized as just as equal as anybody else’s.” Mr Godwin got engaged last month after his boyfriend, Greg DeRoche, 29, proposed to him on a visit to the island. The couple, who have been together for a year and a half, were enjoying a romantic walk along the beach at Cooper’s Island, skipping rocks across the waves, when Mr DeRoche popped the question. “We had talked about it a little beforehand and joked about it. I said, ‘Are you being serious? If you are being serious, then, yes, absolutely!’ I couldn’t imagine spending my life with anyone else.” Soon after their engagement, Mr Godwin saw an appeal on social media from campaigner Tony Brannon for a gay couple to come forward to test the law of the land in relation to same-sex marriage. Mr Godwin said: “We had never really considered Bermuda because of it not being legally recognized but we said, ‘Why not? It would be kind of cool to do’. It’s something that’s bigger than both of us. We could easily have gotten married in Canada, no problem, no questions asked, but we figured if there was something we could help to do to make a difference, why not try to fight for that?” Lawyer and former Attorney-General Mark Pettingill is now representing the couple, pro bono, and he filed notice of their intended marriage with the Registrar-General last week. The application was rejected and Mr Pettingill has since filed a writ with the Supreme Court seeking a declaratory judgment on whether the Registrar’s refusal to provide the couple with the service of marriage on the basis of their sexual orientation breached the Human Rights Act. Mr Godwin said he and Mr DeRoche were preparing affidavits to support their case and were willing to come to the island to testify in court if necessary. In the meantime, he had a message for those who say they don’t believe in same-sex marriage. “It’s not something for you to believe in. I’m not Santa Claus or the Easter bunny. This is me. I’m a real person, a human being, expressing human feelings. “I’m a person, just like you and how can you tell me I’m less than you because of who I love? I don’t say ‘who I choose to love’ because it’s not a choice. My being gay: I have as much choice in that as I do being black. It’s like being left-handed or right-handed; being a woman versus a man.” Mr Godwin, an aquarist who works at Ripley’s Aquarium of Canada and the recipient of several local scholarships and awards, said he was an example of a young Bermudian who was part of the “brain drain” from the island, pursuing a career elsewhere after having “so much invested into them” here. “Bermuda still feels like home,” said the former Saltus Grammar School student. “I would eventually love to come back and give back to an island that has given me so many opportunities. I’m never ever ruling Bermuda out of the question. But, as it stands right now, I can’t do that and be happy.” He compared life in Toronto, where he and Mr DeRoche can walk unnoticed hand-in-hand down the street, with being in Bermuda and “not being able to be completely ... yourself because society tells you that you are less than them”. Mr Godwin went to boarding school and university in Canada and said it was always possible for him to “escape” from the island. But he added: “A lot of Bermudians that might be in a similar position, struggling to come to grips with themselves, they don’t really have that escape. It’s tough living in that sort of climate 24/7.” That knowledge, he said, spurred him and his fiancé on to get involved with Mr Pettingill’s legal challenge. Describing his involvement in what could be an historic case, he admitted: “It’s nerve-racking, for sure. It’s something that ruffles a lot of feathers. It’s something that people aren’t used to. It’s something that’s out of the norm. It shouldn’t be, because it’s just an equal rights thing.”
2016. July 9. Amendments aimed at solidifying marriage as between a man and a woman were passed in the House of Assembly last night, despite vocal opposition. And in the wake of the vote, One Bermuda Alliance backbencher Mark Pettingill said he is ashamed of his party. “How it will affect my position [in the One Bermuda Alliance] over the summer, I don’t know,” he said. The amendments, tabled by Wayne Furbert and further amended by Trevor Moniz, the Attorney-General, state that nothing in the Human Rights Act would override the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974, which provides that marriages are void unless they are between a man and a woman. A total of 20 MPs voted in favour of the amended Bill with ten, including Mr Moniz, voting against it. Michael Dunkley, the Premier, abstained from voting, telling the House that he had asked Mr Furbert to set back the Bill for a week so he could discuss the matter with the Human Rights Commission. Marc Bean and Zane DeSilva were not present, while Deputy Speaker Suzann Roberts Holshouser was unable to vote because she was serving as Speaker at the time. The vote came after almost two hours of debate in which parliamentarians spoke out strongly on both sides of the issue. Mr Pettingill, the Progressive Labour Party’s Walton Brown and independent MP Shawn Crockwell voiced vociferous opposition to the legislation, which they argued was a retrograde step for human rights on the island. Opening his speech by reading the opening paragraph of the Human Rights Act, Mr Pettingill said that everyone on the island deserved the same rights, regardless of sexual orientation. “It’s a human rights issue because of what our Human Rights Act says,” he said. “That every human being is entitled to the same service as any human being.” Mr Crockwell, meanwhile, said that the amendments being debated were in themselves discriminatory. “We are in breach of the Human Rights Act if we pass this,” he said. “We will look regressive, we will look unfriendly and we will look intolerant.” And Mr Brown said that human rights should not be trampled by the will of the majority, calling the legislation offensive. “If we don’t do it, the courts will do it anyway,” he said. “How embarrassing would that be? Our responsibility is to lead. We cannot allow the courts to do it because we don’t have the conviction.” They were joined by several other OBA members, including Grant Gibbons, Glenn Smith and Patricia Gordon Pamplin, who spoke out against the amendments. However, Mr Furbert was joined by Craig Cannonier, Sylvan Richards and Wayne Scott, who said the matter was not one of human rights. Mr Furbert told the House that while the recent referendum may not have been officially answered, it clearly showed the direction the public want to go in. Noting the Premier’s insistence on speaking with the Human Rights Commission before casting a vote, he said: “I heard the people say loud and clear where they want to stand. I’m not listening to three people when 10,000 people already said no.” He further stated that same-sex marriage is not a human rights issue, saying the majority of legislation states under the European Convention of Human Rights had established marriage as between a man and a woman. Stating his opposition to same-sex marriage, Mr Cannonier also cited the referendum. “When the people speak, we must listen to bring good legislation to the table,” he said. And Mr Scott said that when he brought forward amendments to the Human Rights Act to prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, the intent was not to allow same-sex marriage. Mr Pettingill, who as a lawyer represents a gay couple seeking to marry on the island, said the vote would not deter him from pursuing the matter through the courts. However he told The Royal Gazette he was ashamed to see members of his own party vote against the matter. “I generally knew the PLP would vote that way,” he said. “Walton Brown and Michael Scott were courageous. You have got to expect nothing less; they are intellectuals. I’m galled and completely ashamed of members on my side of the House. They didn’t have the sensibility to stand up on this issue. A lot of that was driven by the fact that they are just looking at the political position on votes and that’s equally disgusting. I’m reflecting on this. I feel very bruised right now and saddened and, frankly, astounded that I’m associated with so many narrow-minded people; people I consider to be my friends. It’s astounding to discover that people can be that narrow-minded. This hurts me, I feel very hurt that this is what our Parliament has chosen to do. I don’t necessarily believe that the Governor will assent to this nonsense, given the UK’s position on this. It’s not law yet. This doesn’t impact on the position on the matter still going to court [Godwin and DeRoche marriage application].” How they voted over issue:
• Speaker Randy Horton was absent, meaning Suzann Roberts Holshouser (OBA) was Acting Speaker and did not vote. Susan Jackson (OBA) was Committee Chair and did not vote.
2016. July 8. An application by a gay couple to get married in Bermuda has been rejected by the Government. Bermudian Winston Godwin, 26, and his fiancé Greg DeRoche, 29, who live in Toronto, filed notice of their intended marriage with Registrar-General Aubrey Pennyman on Monday. The application was accompanied by a letter from the couple’s lawyer Mark Pettingill, which asked Mr Pennyman to make clear his “intentions” within two days as to whether he would post notice of their marriage. The Royal Gazette understands that Mr Pennyman has written back to Mr Pettingill, telling him he is not prepared to post the marriage banns, in accordance with the Marriage Act. The Registrar’s letter is believed to cite the Matrimonial Causes Act, section 15 of which says a marriage is void if the parties are not male and female. The matter is now likely to go before the Supreme Court, with Mr Pettingill expected to seek a declaratory judgment to determine exactly what the position is in law. He will also probably apply for a court order which, if issued, would require Mr Pennyman to perform his statutory duties and allow the men to marry. Government backbencher Mr Pettingill, a former Attorney-General, has previously said that since the Human Rights Act bans discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and has primacy over all other laws, gay couples cannot be denied the service of marriage. Mr Pennyman’s letter, it is understood, made no reference to the Human Rights Act. Last month, a referendum was held on same-sex relationships with a voter turnout of 46.89 per cent. Of those who voted, 69 per cent were against same-sex marriage and 63 per cent were against same-sex civil unions. Michael Dunkley, the Premier, said the day before the ballot: “Any outcome is the will of the people and will guide their elected officials accordingly. As we have said in the town hall meeting[s], if there is a ‘no’ vote it will potentially open up challenges in the courts and the courts will ultimately decide.” Human Rights Commission representatives are due to meet with Mr Dunkley early next week to discuss how Bermuda will recognise same-sex relationships. Chairwoman Tawana Tannock told this newspaper the meeting would focus on “next steps”, adding: “Legislation is one of the things that we will be discussing.” “We have some suggestions,” she said. “Right now, we are trying to ascertain what the Government’s timeline is for ensuring that same-sex couples have legal recognition.” She said the HRC had, before and after the referendum, carried out its mandate to educate and raise awareness about equality issues. “Regardless of the referendum, we always have a mandate to ensure that rights are protected. Our main goal always remains advancement for all rights issues. The result doesn’t change government’s legal obligation. Something needs to be implemented to reflect government’s legal obligation.” It wasn’t possible to reach Mr Pennyman, Mr Pettingill or the couple for comment before going to press last night.
2016. June 29. Two same-sex couples are expected to apply to wed in Bermuda in the coming days and are likely to appeal directly to the courts if they are not given permission to marry. The couples — one female and one male — will be represented by former Attorney-General Mark Pettingill, the lawyer and MP who has vowed not to rest after last week’s referendum result until there are equal human rights for all. The marriage applications and the likely court proceedings that could follow may settle the same-sex marriage issue without legislators getting involved, as many have predicted. The referendum on June 23 failed to officially answer whether Bermudian voters were for or against same-sex marriage or civil unions, as the turnout was less than 50 per cent. Mr Pettingill told The Royal Gazette he could not comment on the “anticipated” marriage applications but said: “I have always believed that marriage is a legal issue and not a religious issue. I believe that in light of that, it’s a matter that will be best addressed by the courts. “Consequently, I take the view that the Human Rights Act has primacy and that the Registrar[-General] must provide services in accordance with the Marriage Act.” The Marriage Act requires the Registrar-General to post notice of any intended marriage in the Registry-General for two weeks and to advertise the nuptials in a newspaper within three days of receiving notice of it. Mr Pettingill previously represented a different couple, Bermudian Ijumo Hayward and his American partner, Clarence Williams III, when they applied to wed here in December. The One Bermuda Alliance backbencher sent a covering letter with their application to Registrar-General Aubrey Pennyman, which said if their intended marriage was not advertised in accordance with the law, the couple would seek a Supreme Court order to force him to perform his statutory duty. Mr Pennyman did not issue the required notices and Mr Pettingill was told that the Registrar was taking advice from the Attorney-General’s chambers. Mr Hayward and Mr Williams are already married in the United States and it is understood that their application is unlikely to proceed any farther. The two new couples to be represented by Mr Pettingill are not married and are likely to argue, if their cases come to court, that the Registrar-General is in breach of the Human Rights Act for denying them “goods, facilities or services” based on their sexual orientation. But the timing of any court proceedings relating to their applications could be critical since the Bermuda Government has already tabled legislation — an amendment to the Matrimonial Causes Act — which would allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in relation to weddings. The proposed amendment, which is on the order paper of the House of Assembly, would remove the supremacy of the Human Rights Act in relation to section 15 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, which says a marriage is void if the parties are not male and female. Michael Dunkley would not comment yesterday on whether the Government would proceed with that piece of legislation, or with the draft Civil Union Act 2016, which was tabled for consultation purposes in February. The Premier told this newspaper: “I and my parliamentary colleagues continue to deliberate on [the] matter.” The turnout for the referendum was 46.89 per cent, meaning the two questions on the ballot paper were deemed to be unanswered. Of those who voted, 69 per cent were against same-sex marriage and 63 per cent were against same-sex civil unions. Mr Dunkley said last week of the referendum: “Any outcome is the will of the people and will guide their elected officials accordingly. As we have said in the town hall meeting[s], if there is a ‘no’ vote, it will potentially open up challenges in the courts and the courts will ultimately decide.” Mr Pettingill, meanwhile, told Parliament on Friday: “I won’t rest until this issue is addressed.”
2016. June 17. Regardless of how the public vote in the referendum next week on whether or not to allow same-sex marriages, the Bermuda Government will be obliged to find some form of legal foundation to accommodate same-sex couples who are in permanent relationships. Trevor Moniz, Attorney-General, said last night that the One Bermuda Alliance had tabled its consultation Bill on civil unions because it was felt that the majority of Bermudians would favour the partnerships over outright same-sex marriage. “We were trying to show the courts we were doing our level best to meet the requirements of the law as enunciated by the Chief Justice in the Bermuda Bred case,” Mr Moniz told a gathering at the Bermuda College, where home affairs minister Patricia Gordon-Pamplin was presenting information on the June 23 referendum. That ruling by Chief Justice Ian Kawaley found that non-Bermudian same-sex partners of Bermudians who are in permanent relationships are entitled to live and work in Bermuda free of immigration control. Asked if this meant that civil unions were unavoidable, Mr Moniz said: “It’s not inevitable. There must be some sort of legal framework for same-sex couples in same-sex relationships. If we don’t provide a framework, then the courts will step in. In each case as they come up, if same-sex couples are treated differently from heterosexual couples, then the courts will strike them down as discriminatory. It might be inheritance or owning land, or any one of hundreds of different ways.” If the Bermudian public vote no on both same-sex marriage and civil unions, the Attorney-General and the Cabinet would face a quandary, given amendments two years ago to the Human Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation. “Do we want to go backwards by trying to undo the amendment to the Human Rights Act, or be in breach of the European Convention? Is there some other form of legal framework that might be acceptable if civil union is not acceptable? We will have a difficult decision to make.” If the Government failed to settle on some arrangement for same-sex couples, Mr Moniz said the court challenges that would follow would amount to “a death by a thousand cuts”.
2016. June 17. The campaign against same-sex marriage has an eight-point lead over the campaign in favour, according to a poll commissioned by Bermuda's newspapwe The Royal Gazette. However, those in favour of same-sex civil unions outnumber those against by 13 percentage points, in the survey carried out by Global Research between June 6 and 13. Pollsters asked 402 registered voters the same two questions they will face at the referendum on Thursday next week. Responding to the first question, “Are you in favour of same-sex marriage in Bermuda?” 41 per cent said yes, 49 per cent said no and 10 per cent did not know. Responding to the second question, “Are you in favour of same-sex civil unions in Bermuda?”, 52 per cent said yes, 39 per cent no and 9 per cent did not know. The margin of error for the poll is +/- 5 per cent. The same-sex marriage question has produced close results in all surveys commissioned by this newspaper over the past year. Three months ago, 45 per cent of people said they were in favour, with 48 per cent against. Last October, 48 per cent were in favour, with 44 per cent against. A breakdown of the new results shows most support for same-sex marriage comes from whites and younger people. Among whites, 71 per cent were in favour and 19 per cent against; among blacks, 25 per cent were in favour and 66 per cent against. Among people aged between 18 and 34, 50 per cent were in favour and 44 per cent against; among people aged over 65, 27 per cent were in favour and 63 per cent against. Among men, 42 per cent were in favour and 47 per cent against; among women, 41 per cent were in favour and 51 per cent against. Regarding same-sex civil unions, the white population was overwhelmingly in favour, with 82 per cent agreeing and 12 per cent opposing. Among blacks, 35 per cent were in favour, with 53 per cent against. Our poll also canvassed people’s opinions on whether or not a referendum on same-sex should even take place; the Centre for Justice has argued it breaches the constitution, the Human Rights Act and common law. More people were in opposition to the idea of a referendum, with 43 per cent supporting it, 45 per cent against it and 12 per cent unsure. In the previous poll in March, 58 per cent agreed with a referendum, 34 per cent disagreed and 8 per cent did not know.
January 18, 2020
Multi-national © 2020 by Bermuda Online. All Rights Reserved