Britain Respects Bermuda’s Repeal of Same-Sex Marriage as Others Call for An Intervention

Getty Images

LONDON (AP) — The U.K. government expressed disappointment Thursday that Bermuda has abolished same-sex marriage, but said it would have been wrong to overturn the decision by the British island territory.

Bermuda’s Senate and House of Assembly passed legislation replacing same-sex marriage with domestic partnerships in December, and the island’s U.K.-appointed governor, John Rankin, signed it into law Wednesday.

British Prime Minister Theresa May’s spokesman, James Slack, said Britain was “seriously disappointed” by the decision, which reverses a 2017 court ruling legalizing gay marriage.

But he said it would not have been right for Britain to block the move.

He said the bill “has been democratically passed by the Parliament of Bermuda, and our relationship with the overseas territories is based on partnership and respect for their right to democratic self-government.”

Some opposition politicians criticized the government, saying Britain should have intervened to prevent the change, which they called discriminatory. Labour Party foreign affairs spokeswoman Helen Goodman said the legislation was “shameful” and “turns same-sex couples into second-class citizens.”

Foreign Office Minister Harriett Baldwin said “after full and careful consideration” the government had decided not to block the legislation.

She said Britain’s powers to intervene with laws in its overseas territories “can only can be used where there is a legal or constitutional basis for doing so, and even then only in exceptional circumstances.”

Democracy needs journalism it can trust.

This election season, the stakes are higher than usual — and so is the pressure on newsrooms to soften their coverage, stay quiet, or just disappear. Independent reporting, the kind that answers to readers instead of advertisers or political pressure, matters more in a moment like this, not less.

For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed independent and reader-funded. We have no corporate owner and no shareholders telling us what to cover or how to cover it. That independence is also our biggest vulnerability: nothing protects it except readers choosing to fund it directly.

Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under in a moment like this, it's rarely the independent, reader-funded ones that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top