[4] In May 2006, MP Renee Webb tabled a private member's bill to add sexual orientation to the Human Rights Act 1981.
The amendment would have overriden the Human Rights Act 1981's anti-discrimination provisions on the basis of sexual orientation and retain language stating that marriage is limited to a man and a woman.
[10][11] On 11 February 2016, Attorney General Trevor Moniz announced that the government would introduce a bill to create civil unions for same-sex couples.
[22][23] In June 2016, after the referendum, two same-sex couples indicated they would apply for marriage licenses and hope for a court ruling to settle the issue.
[24] On 6 July 2016, a male same-sex couple filed notice of their intent to marry with an accompanying letter from their attorney requesting that the banns be posted within two days.
[25] On 8 July 2016, the Registrar General's office rejected the application to publish banns for the same-sex couple that had applied for a license earlier in the week,[26] which prompted their attorney to file a writ asking the Supreme Court to determine if the refusal contravened the provisions of the Human Rights Act.
[31] Judge Simmons wrote that "on the facts, the applicants (Winston Godwin and his Canadian fiancé Greg DeRoche) were discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation when the Registrar refused to process their notice of intended marriage....
[45] After Furbert's announcement, several experts doubted the capacity of the bill to avoid Senate scrutiny, particularly if it was amended to make arrangements for existing same-sex marriages.
[51] The law would provide domestic partners with many of the same rights as married couples, particularly in areas such as pensions, inheritance, health care, tax, and immigration.
[55] The provision of royal assent, usually a formality, was debated in the British Parliament and the subject of a lengthy review by Her Majesty's Government and Governor Rankin.
Eventually, on 7 February 2018, Rankin provided assent to the bill, allowing the law to go into effect on a day to be appointed by the Minister of Home Affairs.
[57][58] A number of international politicians and human rights organisations criticised the change and argued that the move would ultimately damage the island's tourist industry.
[76][77] The court agreed to an application by the Attorney General of Bermuda, Kathy Lynn Simmons, to stay the ruling by six weeks to allow the government to consider an appeal.
It held by a four-to-one margin that the Domestic Partnership Act's ban on the recognition of same-sex marriage was not unconstitutional, and reversed the Court of Appeal's ruling.
[3] Lord Hodge, Lady Arden, Lord Reed and Dame Victoria Sharp held that there was no provision in the Bermuda Constitution that would "nullify a legislative provision enacted by the Legislature on the ground that it had been enacted for a religious purpose" and that Section 8 of the Constitution imposed no legal obligation on the government to recognise same-sex marriage.
[3] Lord Sales dissented and wrote that a gay or lesbian person seeking to marry are "hindered in the exercise of their freedom of conscience, in violation of Section 8(1) of the Constitution".
[3] British academic Nicola Barker responded that the supporters of same-sex marriage would stand a good chance of overturning the Council's ruling at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
[94] In July 2022, the Parliament passed a law to legally recognise same-sex marriages performed prior to the March 2022 Privy Council ruling.
[97] An October 2015 poll conducted by Global Research and commissioned by The Royal Gazette found that 48% of Bermudians supported same-sex marriage and 44% opposed it.
[98] On 23 June 2016 Bermudian same-sex union and marriage referendum was held, turn out was below the 50% required at 46.89% but both questions returned negative verdicts.
95% of respondents felt that the legalisation of same-sex marriage had not negatively affected them, and 75% opposed the government spending more money on the issue in court.