IN the aftermath of the failure of Government backbencher Renée Webb's Private Member's Bill which would have extended Bermuda's human rights legislation to recognise so-called sexual orientation — and allow legal recourse to those who believe they have been discriminated against based on their sexuality — Bermuda can add one more divide to the political, racial and social divisions which already exist here . . . the religious divide.I am acutely aware that I may be the last newspaper columnist to publicly venture an opinion on this contentious and emotive issue — although I doubt if debate on this matter will be subsiding any time soon.

Interestingly, I was told by a colleague — even before the failure and non-debate of the Webb amendment — that I should not write anything about the subject, that my dog wasn't in this fight, so to speak.

Of course, that was never an option for me.

I have in the past written on the many varied aspects of human rights and the struggles that have taken place here and around the globe to guarantee such rights.

Although I would never be an advocate for the homosexual lifestyle, nevertheless the question of human rights cannot be divorced from the Webb amendment. For we are dealing with human beings. Either we are all equal before the law or the law can be manipulated to deem that certain groups are, in effect, not human — not worthy of the rights the rest of us enjoy.

If we decide homosexuals aren't human today, who do we go on to dehumanise tomorrow? It's a slippery slope and not one Bermuda should strike out on.

It was not just the politicians who were lobbied on this issue prior to the events of what is now being called "Black Friday". As I mentioned, I was told that I should not write about the matter by a very religious friend of mine who I had broached on the subject of the Webb amendment.

Well, she presented me with no fewer than three Biblical passages to back up her argument that homosexuality is wrong, complete with those claims that above all sins, this one God hates the gay lifestyle most of all and would destroy those people who would sanction such behaviour.

Well, there you have it. Pretty emotive language but such Christian true believers buy into this belief to the core of their hearts. To them, this represents the revealed truth.

I did ask should my colleague whether she preferred that gays be burned at the stake or stoned to death for committing such outrages. But, unprompted by me, she did mention that in times gone by (and by that she meant Biblical times) such would have been the fate of homosexuals. Today, if such awful things happened to homosexuals living in our midst, it would be the divine will of God.

I have been writing for a long time and it would be easy to come down the middle in this debate, if I can call it that. But that is not my way. However, I do have a somewhat different take on this issue, one I have not seen any other commentators raise.

Even though the politicians on both sides of the House have been accused of cowardice for not debating Ms Webb's bill, let me pose the following question: "Were their actions — or lack of actions — any different from what we see on a daily basis in Bermudian society as a whole?"

I once called Bermuda a fig-leaf society because of our inability not to call a spade a spade. Is it not true that we would rather believe a delusion rather than face up to certain truths about our country, our history, our relationships with one another?

You take the issue of Independence, for instance, and the question as to whether there should be a referendum to decide the matter rather than a General Election. The supporters of the campaign to hold a referendum state their efforts are based around nothing more than a question of democratic choice. But I maintain their campaign is nothing less than a cover for the anti-Independence movement to propagandise against the question of sovereignty. There you have it — Bermuda, the fig-leaf society.

Even the question of sexual orientation as addressed in Ms Webb's amendment camouflages the fact that her bill really addresses the matter of gay rights. How many heterosexuals, after all, are likely to be discriminated against by homosexuals in this community?

Bermuda has just witnessed what amounts to its first gay rights demonstration. This is what last Friday's march on Parliament would have been called in any other community in the world. But the rally at Parliament is being called a "pro-democracy" demonstration.

But what would organisers have called it if the bill had been debated in the House of Assembly and still voted down? A protest staged at the House of Assembly could not have been dubbed "pro-democracy" if the democratic process had been followed and the bill was still defeated.

As is so often the case, Bermuda is late in addressing this issue. The matter of enshrining gay rights has been a burning issue beyond of our shores for quite some time now. Even the Christian church is divided on the issue of homosexuality. Is it a question of human rights or Bible-based morality?

When the American Anglican clergyman Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, was consecrated as a Bishop, there was a great danger that the Anglican world-wide community would split between its liberal centre with its Archbishop in Britain and the Anglican churches, some in America and others in Britain's former colonies, which are extremely conservative and who did not believe an openly gay man should hold such a position.

In fact, with the consecration of Bishop Robinson, some commentators in the Anglican fold said the devil had entered the church. And the recent comments of Archdeacon Arnold Hollis in the Bermuda Sun make for interesting reading, for they demonstrate quite clearly that the Christian church even in Bermuda is divided on this issue.

But we as a society as a whole are conflicted and ambivalent on this question of homosexuality. Most of us know someone who is gay and often times we have just turned a blind eye, especially if such a person has held high or important positions in society. If — as I would hope — we are not going to burn homosexuals at the stake or stone them to death, then what are we ultimately going to do, Bermuda?

When are we going to remove the fig-leaf disguising this issue and properly address the matter?

So, what are we going to do, Bermuda?