I’m a gay Bermudian who has lived away from my homeland since 2005 when I graduated from college. This is in large part because the laws of Bermuda did not allow me to return without having to leave my long-term partner thousands of miles away.

As such, I welcomed Chief Justice Ian Kawaley’s recent ruling in the case of the Bermuda Bred Company v The Minister of Home Affairs and the Attorney-General that those in same-sex partnerships with Bermudians should have the same rights to reside and seek employment as the spouses of Bermudians.

The Government is right to request a year to consider how various pieces of legislation may be affected.

In the long run, the Government’s response must take account of Bermudian political and social realities, as well as the need to end unfair discrimination.

However, rushing through legislation to change the definition of marriage before the next election would be the wrong response.

This is because of the strength of feeling that exists against altering the definition of marriage among so many Bermudians.

Enacting same-sex marriage without having fought an election on a manifesto pledge could lead to a backlash that would be counterproductive for LGBT people in Bermuda.

Even if I don’t agree with those who oppose gay marriage, I recognise such individuals’ right to have their case heard. I don’t say such people are axiomatically homophobic; marriage is an ancient social, civic and religious institution about which many people feel very strongly.

That doesn’t mean a democratic society has no right to change what marriage means. But it does mean there are two legitimate sides to the argument.

The best compromise solution would be for the Government to bring in some form of civil partnership. This would mean that the definition of marriage stays as it is, but that legal recognition would be given to same-sex couples.

Civil partnerships, introduced by the Labour government in 2004, worked in Britain for a period of nearly ten years. Their introduction was a significant step forward, giving same-sex couples civil rights in property, social security and pensions, but stopping short of altering the definition of marriage.

Government should see politics as the art of the possible. Civil partnerships could act to narrow a seemingly irreconcilable gap in perception — between those who think it is their human right to get married and those who feel their religious faith does not allow them to countenance such a change.

At this crucial juncture, when social changes are coming so fast in Britain and the United States, and so many feel alienated by the top-down, elitist nature of politics, civil partnerships could help to ensure a growth in understanding between those on both sides of this debate.

They would also give the Government and society the chance to see moderate change in action, while allowing the breathing space for governments to consider the matter further without artificial deadlines set by court decisions.

They would also, crucially, be a real milestone in the fight for LGBT civil rights.

• Ben Greening, who has a doctorate in international history from the London School of Economics and Political Science, is a former Royal Gazette intern reporter and works in London for the Daily Mail’s website Mail Online