Opposition MP Wayne Furbert last night called for robust legislation to both prevent gay couples from tying the knot and from challenging any ban on same-sex marriage in the courts.

The Progressive Labour Party backbencher said he supported a proposed amendment to the Matrimonial Causes Act, tabled by government two weeks ago in Parliament, but it did not go far enough.

The Matrimonial Causes Act has a clause restricting marriage to heterosexuals and the government’s proposed amendment will give that clause supremacy over the Human Rights Act, meaning discrimination based on sexual orientation will be lawful in relation to marriage.

Mr Furbert said the Human Rights Act needed to be amended at the same time, with the addition of a clause giving primacy to the Matrimonial Causes Act, a move he said would protect the change from judicial review.

However, after a lengthy debate in which both sides of the House grappled with the issue, Mr Furbert agreed with a suggestion from deputy PLP leader David Burt to defer his private member’s bill.

Mr Burt called on the Premier to give a ministerial statement tomorrow clarifying the Government’s position and the proposed referendum. Mr Burt suggested Mr Furbert agree to rise and report on his private member’s bill in the meantime, to which Mr Furbert agreed.

The Constituency 6 MP began the debate by saying that the One Bermuda Alliance had failed the people of Bermuda by not defining marriage as between a male and a female during the 2013 human rights debates.

He also criticised its failure to be clear on its stand on the topic, suggesting government MPs were “under the whip”.

Mr Furbert further hit out at the OBA for not holding a conscience vote within the party.

Mr Furbert quoted Michael Dunkley in 2012, at the time an Opposition senator, when he said: “I do not support same-sex marriages. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.”

“What has happened in the last three years?” Mr Furbert asked. “I personally suggested an amendment at the time [in 2013] that marriage should be defined between a male and a female.”

He claimed the Human Rights Act was being “emasculated” by the proposed amendment to the Matrimonial Clauses Act, though he said he supported the change.

Referring to a draft bill introducing civil unions, which has been tabled in the House for consultation, Mr Furbert said: “To me the civil union is an engagement ring before the marriage. We all know what’s coming next; this is just a slippery slope.”

OBA MP Mark Pettingill then rose to tell MPs that “we have evolved”.

“We must establish some framework for same-sex couples to enjoy the same privileges and the same rights as other couples,” he added.

“The world is looking at us with regards to what we do with this human rights issue.”

Mr Pettingill said he believed people were born homosexual and he would not rest until gay people enjoyed equal rights.

Progressive Labour Party MP Walton Brown, borrowing from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, said there was a “figurative plague” over the House.

He said he could not support Mr Furbert’s amendment and called on the government to take the lead in creating a truly non-discriminatory society.

Education minister Wayne Scott, meanwhile, said he supported rights for everyone, although he did not personally support same-sex marriage.

Mr Scott said the amendments were best left to the Matrimonial Causes Act, not the Human Rights Act.

The PLP’s Kim Wilson argued that the Human Rights Act could only be trumped by Bermuda’s Constitution.

Patricia Gordon-Pamplin, Minister of Community, Culture and Sport, said the government did not support Mr Furbert’s proposal and the civil unions legislation was tabled so the public could learn about it.

“We are willing to face difficult issues, irrespective of the blow back that we are likely to get,” she said.