What You Need to Know about

MarriageQuestions & Answers

Driving the Debate in Bermuda

PAGES

2

2

2

3

3

6

7

What is Preserve Marriage?

What is Marriage?

Why Marriage Matters?

Why Does Marriage Matter to Governments?

Our 3 Objectives

What are the Consequences to Redefining Marriage?

Questions and Answers

CONTENTS

Preserve Marriage Bermuda was created by a group of concerned citizens in Bermuda and is now a movement representing an active task-force of over 400 diverse volunteers. We exist to provide knowledge, direction, and action to the over 8,000 residents of Bermuda that have signed the petition for marriage to remain defined and upheld as a special union ordained by God between a man and a woman. We firmly believe this union celebrates the necessary natural differences between a male and a female to procreate, fosters moral integrity, strengthens the family unit and

therefore our society. For these reasons, we are opposed to same-sex marriage in Bermuda.

Hence, our two-fold position is: for marriage to remain between a man and a woman for the betterment of society; and, a few should not decide, for the many, to redefine marriage in Bermuda.

Representatives of Preserve Marriage welcome dialogue with the LGBT community and supporters of same-sex marriage in a respectful manner.

WHAT IS PRESERVE MARRIAGE BERMUDA?

Marriage brings a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union may produce.1

Marriage is based on a biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a father and a mother.

WHAT IS MARRIAGE? WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS?

Marriage is the building block for all human civilization. Marriage has public, not just private, purposes as a unique relationship. The New Family Structures Study2 by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas-Austin and a report in the highly respected Journal Demography3

provide conclusive evidence from their research that children do better when raised by a married mother and father, confirming what social science has shown for decades.

2

In the debate between traditional marriage verses same-sex marriage, a compromise introduced by some governments is the implementation of a civil union. However, the public must be fully informed that in almost every country which has redefined marriage, civil unions were first introduced as the “answer” to alleged discrimination. The public and/or government was led to believe that this would be the end of the matter. However, it inevitably leads to

a legal fight of the separate but unequal argument which results in the redefinition of marriage. In light of the statistics, governments that introduce civil unions by default start the countdown to same-sex marriage. If a government understands the importance of its role in marriage and its significance to the betterment of society, civil unions would be an obvious contradiction to this objective.

TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE TRUTH OF CIVIL UNIONS:

INTERNATIONALLY, all countries which have legalized same-sex marriage, in all but one case (South Africa), it was preceded by the creation of some form of “registered partnership” or civil union. “More and more countries are moving on from what has been labeled as the ‘failed experiment of civil unions’ by enacting equality in marriage.”5 Due to this fact, because Preserve Marriage supports traditional marriage, and civil

unions eventually lead to same-sex marriage, by default we cannot support civil unions.

It has been repeatedly documented that LGBT legal advocates argue that a civil union is a second-class status to marriage, “… the fact that a civil union remains a separate status... for gay people represents real and powerful inequality” states LGBT Advocates & Defenders.6

Governments recognize marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does.4 It sends a social message about the importance of a father and mother to provide children with separate, distinct, and irreplaceable parenting gifts. The more children that receive these gifts and guidance, over time, the more society benefits.

Marriage ensures the well-being of children. When a government recognizes marriage, it protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children.

Some governments’ greatest burdens are anti-social behavior that is statistically traced back to the family where one or more of the biological parents are not involved in the child’s or adolescent’s life.

Governments recognize, protect, and promote marriage as the ideal institution for having and raising children.

WE ARE WORKING TO ENSURE THAT OUR3 OBJECTIVES ARE IMPLEMENTED:

1.

FACT

WHY DOES MARRIAGE MATTER TO GOVERNMENTS?

3

An Overview of the status of civil unions and same-sex marriage around the world is revealing. It is important to note that since the year 2000, the average number of years between legislation for same-sex unions and the redefinition of marriage (same-sex marriage) drops from 8.6 years on the chart below to 6.9 years.7 Concerns about specific social benefits can be addressed without redefining marriage or introducing a special union for heterosexual or same-sex relationships. We should seek sound policy generally, including sound marriage policy, and that means recognizing marriage as a union of one man and one woman for the betterment of society.

Argentina

Belgium

Brazil

Canada

Denmark

England & Wales

France

Iceland

Ireland

Luxembourg

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Portugal

Scotland

South Africa

Spain

Sweden

Uruguay

2002-2009 progressively region by region

2000 - Legal cohabitation

2004 (though some individual judicial decisions precede this)

2001-2003 progressively region by region

1/10/89 - First of its kind in the world

2005

November 1999 - PACS

1996

1/1/2011

01/11/2004

1998 - Registered partnership

25/04/2005

1993

11/5/2001 - “De facto unions”

2005

30-Nov-06

1998-2005 progressively region by region

1995 (third country, after Denmark and Norway)

01/01/2008

21 July 2010

30 January 2003

16 May 2013

20 July 2005

15 June 2012

17 July 2013

18 May 2013

17 May 2010

22 May 2015

18 June 2014

1 April 2001

17 April 2013

11 May 2008

17 May 2009

4 February 2014

30 November 2006

3 July 2005

1 May 2009

3 May 2013

8

3

9

4

23

8

14

14

4

10

3

8

15

8

9

0

5

14

5

COUNTRY LEGISLATED FOR SAME-SEX UNIONS REDEFINED MARRIAGE

AVERAGE: 8.6

NUMBER OF YEARS IN BETWEEN

21in the United Nations have redefined marriage

193on

ly

ou

t o

f

co

un

trie

s

4

We seek to ensure that the Marriage Act 1944, the Interpretation Act 1951, the Matrimonial Clauses Act 1976, and the Human Rights Act 1981 are fortified to preserve marriage in Bermuda to remain between a man and a woman for the benefit of our children and society, because a father and a mother are irreplaceable. Studies demonstrate that children tend to be best protected, nurtured, and fare best when raised by their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.8 Government is involved in the personal promise of a male and female married couple because

it is of public benefit to society as a whole. Fortifying traditional marriage must consist of the following amendments to existing legislation: Supremacy clauses inserted into the following legislation to ensure that the definition of marriage between a man and a woman is not discriminatory under the Human Rights Act 1981 or any other legislation in Bermuda: i. Marriage Act 1944 ii. Interpretation Act 1951 iii. Matrimonial Clauses Act 1976 iv. Human Rights Act 1981

TO ENSURE LEGISLATION RELATED TO MARRIAGEIN BERMUDA IS FORTIFIED:

Preserve Marriage Bermuda seeks confirmation from the Government of Bermuda that it will support marriage between a man and a woman for the betterment of our society and that it will expeditiously enact these supremacy clauses.

The government should first and foremost uphold the ideal for the benefit of society, as traditional marriage is a personal promise with a public purpose. If the government is unwilling to stand strong for this societal principle, then the voting population of Bermuda and their elected representatives must be free to deliberate and vote about marriage policy through a referendum, not by unelected judges. Because the redefinition of marriage results in reordering society, restructuring of the family unit, and radical cultural change (see next page for more information), the few in government and the courts should not decide for the many.

TO ENSURE THAT A FEW DO NOT DECIDE FOR THE MANY:

The European Court of Human Rights, in discussing the role of the judiciary when considering same sex marriage in Europe stated:

“…as matters stand, the question whether or not to allow same-sex marriage is left to regulation by the national law of the Contracting State. In that connection, the Court observes that marriage has deep-rooted social and cultural connotations which may differ largely from one society to another. The Court reiterates that it must not rush to substitute its own judgment in place of that of the national authorities, who are best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society…” 9

2.

3.

5

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCESTO REDEFINING MARRIAGE?

State Education Boards are being pressured to include gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender sex education in their curriculum. Additional legal challenges for other family units such as polyamory (multiple lovers living as one family), polygamy, and multiple-parenting (allowing judges to legally recognize more than 2 parents per child). A school administration hosts “Gender-Bender Day” in which boys in the school have to dress like girls and girls in the school have to dress like boys. Christian charities in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., were forced to stop providing adoption and foster care services because they wanted to place children with married moms and dads, in accordance with their religious and moral beliefs.10 The community that is speaking in favor of traditional marriage is being seen more and more as engaging hate-speech or bigotry.

A same-sex couple gives their 11 year old son hormone blockers to give him more time to decide if he wants to become a boy or a girl. A Boston father was arrested over objections to homosexual curriculum in his 6 year old son’s kindergarten class.11 In Washington, a 45 year old transgender student who identifies himself as a woman, but has male genitalia, is being allowed to use a locker room shared by females at Evergreen College, the high school girls swim team, and the Children’s Swim Academy. This has upset many parents in the community. Because Bermuda is so small, the cultural impact of redefining marriage will be exponential.

WATCH THE VIDEO “MARRIAGE & SOCIETY: THE BIG PICTURE” on our homepage at www.preservemarriage.bm for a better understanding of why marriage matters and how redefining marriage will reorder society. “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there – because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.” Writer and gay rights activist Masha Gessen.

It is important to note that the redefinition of marriage results in reordering society, restructuring the family unit, and radical cultural change. Redefining marriage leads to an avalanche of enormous cultural change that infiltrates various areas of society. Here are some examples of the cultural changes that our neighbor, the United States, is dealing with after they redefined marriage on June 26, 2015. These are reported by major news networks within the above video, others have been cited:

6

High rates of divorce, cohabitation, and unwed childbearing lead to heartache and difficulty. Should we reinforce these mistakes, or begin to restore the marriage culture? Redefining marriage makes marriage about adult desires instead of the needs of children; about adult emotional satisfaction instead of a permanent and exclusive union of man and woman for childbearing and rearing. We should rebuild and restore marriage, not undermine or redefine it.

No. Across the member countries of the United Nations, only 21 of the 193 countries have redefined marriage to include same-sex marriage. The majority still uphold marriage between a man and a woman. Whatever pollsters and pundits may tell us about “inevitability,” the only way to guarantee a cultural loss is to sit idly by. We should frame our message, strengthen coalitions, devise strategies, and bear witness.

Telling the truth about marriage matters. In the struggle to preserve marriage, we can’t just look to immediate advances or setbacks. We need to prepare for the longer work of helping reshape how Bermuda thinks about marriage.

The question is not what will happen, but what should we do?

After all, there’s no such thing as being on the “right” or “wrong” side of history. There’s only being on the right or wrong side of truth.

In the debate between traditional marriage verses same-sex marriage, a compromise introduced by some governments is the implementation of a civil union. However, the public must be fully informed that in almost every country which has redefined marriage, civil unions were first introduced as the “answer” to alleged discrimination. The public and/or government was led to believe that this would be the end of the matter. However, it inevitably leads to a legal flight of the separate but unequal argument which results in the redefinition of marriage. Internationally, all countries that have legalized same-sex marriage, in all but one case (South Africa) it was preceded by the creation of civil unions. “More and more countries are moving on from the ‘failed experiment’ of civil unions’ by enacting equality in marriage.” The average number of years between the legislation for same-sex unions to the redefinition of marriage (same-sex marriage) is 8.6 years. It is important to note that since the year 2000 this has dropped to 6.9 years.7 See chart on page 4.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Hasn’t divorce already harmed the institution you’re trying to preserve?

Isn’t same-sex marriage inevitable internationally? Aren’t you on the wrong side of history?

Isn’t the answer to this debate for Bermuda to Introduce Civil Unions or Civil Partnerships for a win-win result?

Q.

Q.

Q.

A.

A.

A.

7

All people are capable of loving and providing for children, but all the love in the world can’t turn a woman into a father or a man into a mother. A child needs both a mom and a dad. Children do better when raised by their married mom and dad, and decades of social science evidence show this.12 We shouldn’t place the desires of adults over the needs of children.

The latest and most comprehensive research continues to confirm what social science has shown for decades: children do better when raised by a married mother and father. For example, the New Family Structures Study2 by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas–Austin and a report in the highly respected journal Demography3 provide evidence for this conclusion. Still, the social science on same-sex parenting is a matter of significant ongoing debate, and we shouldn’t let it dictate our choices about marriage.

No. Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind. Men and women — regardless of their race — can unite in marriage; and children need moms and dads — regardless of their race. Equality demands that the law treats things that are the same in the same ways. But a same-sex relationship is not the same as a marriage. No same-sex union can produce a child, nor unite a child with both a mother and a father.

Sound public policy is based on the rule, not the exception, and most marriages do produce children. While not every married couple will have children, every child has both a mom and a dad. Childless marriages serve a broader social purpose too—showing the potential to create children and to meet children’s need for a mom and a dad.

Are you saying that gay parents can’t love and provide for a child?

What does the research say?

Isn’t denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry the same as a ban on interracial marriage?

If marriage is about children, what about couples who can’t or don’t have children?

Q.

Q.

Q.

Q.

A.

A.

A.

A.

Redefining marriage undermines the entire institution and weakens society. It sends the message that marriage is about adult desires and not joining the two sexes together for the needs of children. The most pro-family policy we can promote is one that reflects the truth about marriage and puts the needs of children first.

What could be more pro-family than expanding the rules on who can marry? Q.

A.

8

Marriage is society’s best guarantee of a limited government that stays out of family life. In fact, enduring marriages are society’s best tool for ensuring that children are born into stable families that will care for, educate, and train those children to be good people and good citizens. If mothers and fathers do not fulfill the responsibility for caring for the children they create, then third parties and government will have to step in.

By promoting strong marriage and intact families, the government actually reduces the role it would otherwise play in fulfilling these social functions.13 It is in the interest of children, spouses, and the public to promote strong and enduring marriages.

Every adult is free to love as they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine marriage for all of us. Every marriage policy draws lines based on principle. For example, our current marriage policy says that a person cannot marry someone who is already married, or a close blood relative—regardless of love. Historically, policy has also been based on the idea that marriage is fundamentally rooted in the union of one man and one woman. If that principle is removed, there is no consistent argument for stopping any number of redefinitions to marriage. We should stand by the enduring principle that marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union may produce.

Why doesn’t government just get out of the marriage business altogether?

Why shouldn’t everyone be able to marry the one they love?

Q.

Q.

A.

A.

Throughout history government

For the betterment of society

has Upheld

MARRIAGEGovernment did not create marriage, it recognizes and upholds the importance of marriage for society. Government upholds the ideal because it has been a proven sociological fact that children do better when their mother and father are in a loving relationship with each other.3

9

Redefining marriage denies, as a matter of policy, the ideal that a child needs a mom and a dad. Redefining it to mean a relationship between any two consenting adults is presented by its advocates as a minor change. But if the law adopts this principle — that marriage can be whatever emotional bond the government says it should be — what stops the government from redefining marriage in other ways? Already advocates, in the United States, have gone to federal court demanding a constitutional right to practice polygamy. The debate about marriage is about restoring a culture in which children are most likely to be raised by the man and woman responsible for bringing them into the world.14

Heroic single moms and dads should be commended. However, studies show that the majority of single parents encourage, welcome, and support the other biological parent being involved in their child’s life whenever possible. This is due to the fact that both moms and dads bring separate, unique, and irreplaceable parenting gifts in the life of the child.

How does redefining marriage weaken marriage?

What about single moms or dads that are raising children?

Q.

Q.

A.

A.

1 Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George, “What Is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol.34, No.1 (Winter 2010) and What is Marriage? By Ibid. authors (New York, NY: Encounter Books, 2012). 2 Mark Regnerus, FamilyStructureStudies.com 3 Douglas W. Allen et al., “Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld”, Demography, November 2012 4 Patrick Fagan, “The Wealth of Nations Depends on the Health and Families,” Public Discourse, February 6, 2013. 5 Available at <http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/A-failed-experiment.pdf> 6 Available at: <http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf> 7 Alliance Defending Freedom Executive Summary on Civil Unions 26 May 2015 Update / Landesgerichtsstrabe 18.10 Austria 8 See S. McLanahan, G. Sandefun, Growing up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA p. 1. 9 ECtHR, Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, Application no 30141/04, judgment of 24 June 2010. 10 Thomas Messner “From Culture Wars to Conscience Wars,” The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No.11 Available at: <http://foxnews.com/story/2005/08/10/parental/rights/vs/public/schools.html> 12 Brief for Social Science Professors as Amicus Curiae, Hollingworth v Perry, U.S. v Windsor, Nos. 12-144, 12-307 (2013) 13 Robert Rector, “Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty,” The Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 117, September 5, 201214 Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P George, “Marriage and Politics: Why the Debate Matters and Why the Conjugal View Can Prevail,” National Review, February 11, 2013

has Upheld

10

OUR UNCOMPROMISING GUIDELINE:WE BELIEVE ALL PEOPLE SHOULD BE RESPECTED

regardless of their sexuality. We understand that to supporttraditional marriage does not equal bigotry, hate-speech,or fear as we do not and will not participate in nor tolerate

any form of derogatory speech from either side.

PRESERVE MARRIAGE BERMUDA LIMITED ©2016

Tel: (441) 516-8180 I Mailing Address: P.O. Box HM 3120, Hamilton, HMNXinfo@preservemarriage.bm I www.preservemarriage.bm

www.preservemarriage.bm