Bermuda Bans Same-Sex Marriage Less Than 1 Year After Legalizing It

[Lysistrata]

No one knows if a same-sex couple will adopt a child. Everyone knows that heterosexual couples have children that,m perhaps, one, or both, do not want and might abuse.

 

[rightwinger]

Welcome to 2018
Americans no longer have issues with same sex marriage
Live and let live

Young people overwhelmingly support it

The same young people who will pass up Bermuda as a Honeymoon destination

Americans as a idealistic nation are dumbing down. They have less sense now then they ever had. They don't see that one reaps what one sows. They don't care what their brother does as long as it doesn't bother them (until they find they've lost the right to have opinions). The only spirituality Americans now have is for their favorite sports team! And yes, I went to Philly (Dilly Dilly), and saw just how people can go bananas for a team. If they were half as fervent for righteousness --- everyone everywhere would be so much more happier as a whole! The youth have no life experience. And most of the youth today are raised to believe everyone gets a trophy not matter how inept they are! Sorry, but all lifestyles are not equally productive --- not all behavior patterns are worthy of a medal!

Judge not lest thy be judged

Americans realize it is no big deal. We allowed gay marriage, the sun kept rising, the world did not end, people just went about their business

An overwhelming majority now considers same sex marriage to be no bid deal

Except for the haters

Sodom and Gomorrah didn't happen overnight. They came about one rung down the ladder at a time until there was only Lot!

"Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed" (Luke 17:26-30, NIV; cf. Matt 24:37-39).

What a nasty God you worship

But you still voted for Trump didn't you?

Being angry with God is a sure fire winner. Shout to the world how disgusted you are that He isn't as inclusive as you think He should be. Tie Him into a political figure.

Your spirituality is quite trite.

Any God who would destroy the earth in a pit of anger is not worth worshiping

 

[rightwinger]

Caribbean people tolerate gays, but do not favor giving them special rights status.

I have LG people in my extended family and support their rights, but I don’t support giving them special rights like altering the definition of marriage to suit them.

That is not special

It is the same right you have

It is you who are claiming to be special

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Caribbean people tolerate gays, but do not favor giving them special rights status.

I have LG people in my extended family and support their rights, but I don’t support giving them special rights like altering the definition of marriage to suit them.

That is not special

It is the same right you have

It is you who are claiming to be special

Let me explain what I mean. The definition of marriage had always been the union between a male and a female. The definition was altered to accommodate gays and lesbians. Yes, they received special treatment. Sexual orientation was not a consideration in the definition. In other words, the definition applied to heterosexual, homosexual and the rest of the lgbtq...z. For example a gay man could marry a lesbian woman, or a straight woman. It didn’t matter. In fact many gays/lesbians married members of the opposite sex before the definition was altered. Now the definition is any 2 human beings can marry.

Personally, I am not that concerned about it. It’s done and I will move on, but it did provide special treatment to gays and lesbians, that’s a fact.

 

[rightwinger]

Caribbean people tolerate gays, but do not favor giving them special rights status.

I have LG people in my extended family and support their rights, but I don’t support giving them special rights like altering the definition of marriage to suit them.

That is not special

It is the same right you have

It is you who are claiming to be special

Let me explain what I mean. The definition of marriage had always been the union between a male and a female. The definition was altered to accommodate gays and lesbians. Yes, they received special treatment. Sexual orientation was not a consideration in the definition. In other words, the definition applied to heterosexual, homosexual and the rest of the lgbtq...z. For example a gay man could marry a lesbian woman, or a straight woman. It didn’t matter. In fact many gays/lesbians married members of the opposite sex before the definition was altered. Now the definition is any 2 human beings can marry.

Personally, I am not that concerned about it. It’s done and I will move on, but it did provide special treatment to gays and lesbians, that’s a fact.

To me
They received the same treatment

In the past, they received special discrimination

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Caribbean people tolerate gays, but do not favor giving them special rights status.

I have LG people in my extended family and support their rights, but I don’t support giving them special rights like altering the definition of marriage to suit them.

That is not special

It is the same right you have

It is you who are claiming to be special

Let me explain what I mean. The definition of marriage had always been the union between a male and a female. The definition was altered to accommodate gays and lesbians. Yes, they received special treatment. Sexual orientation was not a consideration in the definition. In other words, the definition applied to heterosexual, homosexual and the rest of the lgbtq...z. For example a gay man could marry a lesbian woman, or a straight woman. It didn’t matter. In fact many gays/lesbians married members of the opposite sex before the definition was altered. Now the definition is any 2 human beings can marry.

Personally, I am not that concerned about it. It’s done and I will move on, but it did provide special treatment to gays and lesbians, that’s a fact.

To me
They received the same treatment

In the past, they received special discrimination

I understand your point of view, but for me yours is emotionally based (not that emotion in an institution such as marriage should not be considered), where as mind is purely objective. Again, I am ok with the change, but fear the precedent it potentially sets.

 

[rightwinger]

Bermuda will answer for its decision


If they value their conservative heritage over a fair treatment of their citizens ....let them pay for it

 

[Silhouette]

The question most certainly is not done. Obergefell declared that kids are a part of the whole of the marriage concept. Yet at no hearing on gay marriage was there the required separate counsel briefing the court on kids' unique benefits from the marriage contract up for radical revision. That revision leaves kids in this radical new marriage contract, bound away by said contract for life from either a mother or father.

This is in full violation of the Infancy Doctrine. In order for gay marriage to have legitimately prevailed, kids had to have had their own counsel briefing the court. This never happened once. So there literally is no legitimate gay marriage. Repeating a mistake doesn't make it not a mistake.

 

[rightwinger]

The question most certainly is not done. Obergefell declared that kids are a part of the whole of the marriage concept. Yet at no hearing on gay marriage was there the required separate counsel briefing the court on kids' unique benefits from the marriage contract up for radical revision. That revision leaves kids in this radical new marriage contract, bound away by said contract for life from either a mother or father.

This is in full violation of the Infancy Doctrine. In order for gay marriage to have legitimately prevailed, kids had to have had their own counsel briefing the court. This never happened once. So there literally is no legitimate gay marriage. Repeating a mistake doesn't make it not a mistake.

Beat that dead horse

 

[Syriusly]

70% of people under 30 believe same sex marriage should be legal

These are the young couples that will be considering Bermuda as a honeymoon destination. Of course, no same sex couple would go there. But heterosexual couples will not get as good a reaction from their friends when they announce they are honeymooning in Bermuda

70% of people under 30 are indoctrinated queer by folks like you..



Btw even California voted no to gay marriage..



No one has a problem with civil unions

LOL- lots of people had problems with civil union- Georgia went so far as to specifically state in their constitutional amendment that civil unions would not be recognized by Georgia.

Georgia Constitutional Amendment 1 - Wikipedia

(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]

Americans don't have a right to a civil union- but Americans do have a right to marriage

 

[mdk]

The question most certainly is not done. Obergefell declared that kids are a part of the whole of the marriage concept. Yet at no hearing on gay marriage was there the required separate counsel briefing the court on kids' unique benefits from the marriage contract up for radical revision. That revision leaves kids in this radical new marriage contract, bound away by said contract for life from either a mother or father.

This is in full violation of the Infancy Doctrine. In order for gay marriage to have legitimately prevailed, kids had to have had their own counsel briefing the court. This never happened once. So there literally is no legitimate gay marriage. Repeating a mistake doesn't make it not a mistake.

How odd that none of the dissenting opinions ever mentioned the Infancy Doctrine or that children needed their own counsel briefing the court in this case. The reason for that fact is rather plain: the courts are not bound by whatever legal standard you make up. In fact, no one is.

 

[Syriusly]

The question most certainly is not done. Obergefell declared that kids are a part of the whole of the marriage concept. .

Obergefell noted that children of gay couples were harmed when their parents were not allowed to marry.

No matter what the voices in your head tell you- the rest of the world wont' ignore the actual ruling in Obergefell.

 

[Syriusly]

Atlantans don't care much for gays at all.

Most people don't. Most people think they have disgusting lifestyles and they're generally annoying, whiny little bed wetters.

This country has been tolerant of gays for decades, but the agenda isn't tolerance. The left wants gays exalted and their deviant ways celebrated.

Personally I wish more libturds would go queer though, the possibility of their breeding is a threat to our species.

Most people think homophobic fundies have disgusting lifestyles and they're generally annoying, whiny little martyrs.

This country has been tolerant of homophobic fundies for centuries, but the agenda isn't tolerance. The Right wants homophobic fundies exalted and their deviant ways celebrated.

Heterosexuality is not deviant.

When its done right it is.......

 

[Syriusly]

Caribbean people tolerate gays, but do not favor giving them special rights status.

I have LG people in my extended family and support their rights, but I don’t support giving them special rights like altering the definition of marriage to suit them.

LOL- and by 'special rights' you mean treating them the same as everyone else.

 

[Syriusly]

Atlantans don't care much for gays at all.

Most people don't. Most people think they have disgusting lifestyles and they're generally annoying, whiny little bed wetters.

This country has been tolerant of gays for decades, but the agenda isn't tolerance. The left wants gays exalted and their deviant ways celebrated.

Personally I wish more libturds would go queer though, the possibility of their breeding is a threat to our species.

Idiotic conturds like you spent 2 hundred years attacking gays- literally passing laws to imprison them.

But now that the courts have denied you your jollies in oppressing gays, you whine and whine because gays are being treated equally.

Well we don't have to celebrate you conturds deviant ways- you can sit in your own excrement and whine and whine and whine- thats what you do best.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Caribbean people tolerate gays, but do not favor giving them special rights status.

I have LG people in my extended family and support their rights, but I don’t support giving them special rights like altering the definition of marriage to suit them.

LOL- and by 'special rights' you mean treating them the same as everyone else.

With respect to marriage, they were already treated like everyone else. That is- anybody who wants to marry had to marry a person of the opposite sex, no matter of sexual orientation. It’s pretty clear there was no special treatment for heterosexuals or gays with that requirement.

 

[rightwinger]

Caribbean people tolerate gays, but do not favor giving them special rights status.

I have LG people in my extended family and support their rights, but I don’t support giving them special rights like altering the definition of marriage to suit them.

LOL- and by 'special rights' you mean treating them the same as everyone else.

With respect to marriage, they were already treated like everyone else. That is- anybody who wants to marry had to marry a person of the opposite sex, no matter of sexual orientation. It’s pretty clear there was no special treatment for heterosexuals or gays with that requirement.

Completely silly

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Caribbean people tolerate gays, but do not favor giving them special rights status.

I have LG people in my extended family and support their rights, but I don’t support giving them special rights like altering the definition of marriage to suit them.

LOL- and by 'special rights' you mean treating them the same as everyone else.

With respect to marriage, they were already treated like everyone else. That is- anybody who wants to marry had to marry a person of the opposite sex, no matter of sexual orientation. It’s pretty clear there was no special treatment for heterosexuals or gays with that requirement.

Complete and utter MORONIC horseshit:

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays.In any case they are in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

 

[Silhouette]

How odd that none of the dissenting opinions ever mentioned the Infancy Doctrine or that children needed their own counsel briefing the court in this case. The reason for that fact is rather plain: the courts are not bound by whatever legal standard you make up. In fact, no one is.

Not made up. Fact.

Pay attention to the underlined below and the fact that Obergefell itself said that children are integral to the concept of marriage as a whole. This of course is upheld in divorce proceedings which take into account children's needs first and adults secondary to them in the dissolving of the contract: which is not wholly dissolved until the children have derived their entire benefits from it (contact with both mother and father). There can be no more extraordinary circumstance to a child than a civil court preparing to ratify a contract which banishes them from either a father or mother for life (gay marriage). Nothing is more compelling to a child than that.

Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf
(Page 8 of PDF Page 53 of actual document; at the bottom paragraph)

..Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in a civil suit can be as well.

Obergefell noted that children of gay couples were harmed when their parents were not allowed to marry.

Divorce proceedings, an unfortunate part of the marriage contract rescission, find children as dominant and continue the marriage effectively for their sake until they are of age. So they can be seen as no less integral, no less dominant over marriage in general. Obergefell in fact named children as integral to marriage.

Ergo, you may wish compassion for children caught up in unfortunate lifestyles that by their makeup seek to extinguish all hope of the missing father or mother being in the child's life. But children had to have counsel briefing all cases on their stake in marriage's father/mother arrangement.