Courts have been imposing same-sex marriages on nations around the world for over a decade, especially in the West. Usually the courts only have to do it once, but in Bermuda the court had to do it twice.

Back in May of 2017, the Supreme Court of Bermuda ruled that marriage licenses must be granted to same-sex couples. This reversed the practice of marriages on that island nation since time immemorial. The people of Bermuda did not approve of this judicial decree, and less than a year later the decision was reversed by the passage of the Domestic Partnership Act (“DPA”).

This week the Bermuda Supreme Court came back with a ruling that the DPA is unconstitutional, and that same-sex marriage must continue to be allowed in the British oversees territory.

Unelected Justices in Bermuda imposed their view of marriage on the people. The elected members of Parliament acted to reassert the voice of the people in their laws by passing the DPA. Now the unelected Justices have struck that act down.

It appears that the will of the people does not matter in Bermuda. The Legislature clearly doesn’t matter. The Supreme Court in that nation has taken all authority, and imposed its own views through these repeated rulings.

One of the most outrageous things I have read in my entire life comes from this most recent Supreme Court ruling:

“[T]he State cannot use the legislative process to pass laws of general application which favour some beliefs at the expense of others.”

Think about that.

What laws of general application can be passed if this is true?

The majority of people in Bermuda believe that the speed limit on their main roads should be 35 kilometers per hour. Young Bermudans, though, believe that the speed limit should be higher.

Is it now inappropriate for the Parliament to pass a law favoring one belief about the proper speed limit at the expense of the other?

Why are beliefs about marriage different than beliefs about a speed limit? Why are they different from beliefs about taxation, property, or murder?

This argument from the Supreme Court pretends to be neutral to all beliefs, but really it is an imposition of the belief of the justices over the belief of the people of Bermuda. It is tyranny.

All laws favor one belief over another. Bermudans should be able to determine for themselves, through the parliamentary system, what their recognized definition of marriage will be. Tyranny must be rejected, including the tyranny of pretend neutrality. The Bermudan people should ignore this ruling from their Supreme Court, and continue to operate under the law that they have passed in accordance with their belief about marriage.