Commissioners grappled at length with the controversial decision to grant charity status to Preserve Marriage on a one-year probationary basis, The Royal Gazette has learnt.

The group, which opposes same-sex marriage, was approved by the Charities Commission at the same time as OUTBermuda, “a charity designed to educate and promote safe spaces for the LGBTQ community”, a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Home Affairs said yesterday.

Preserve Marriage’s application was initially deferred — but the group successfully argued that its educational work qualified as a public benefit.

“The Preserve Marriage decision was the cause of much debate within the commission,” a source close to the decision told this newspaper.

“Even in the end, it was not a unanimous decision. Some on the commission do not agree with Preserve Marriage’s objects and activities. But you have to put personal feelings aside, look at an application objectively and apply the law as you see it.

“You cannot take arbitrary decisions based on viewpoints you don’t like or disagree with. You also look at past decisions for guidance so that you’re as consistent as possible.”

The approval, which the ministry spokeswoman said was reached after “robust, healthy dialogue”, was lambasted by the Rainbow Alliance advocacy group, who argued that organisations with a political purpose could not become charities.

The source said the Rainbow Alliance had been technically correct, adding that “you cannot have purposes which are political”.

“But the same guidance says you can engage in political activities which further a charitable purpose. The ‘advancement of education’ is such a purpose, including public education relating to marriage. Political purposes versus political activities furthering a charitable purpose? It’s a very fine and difficult distinction to draw — clearly Preserve Marriage dabbles in politics, but is what they did or proposed to do strictly prohibited? Is it any different from what many other charities do?

“You have to be very careful about making decisions like that, and you have to consider giving people the benefit of the doubt for such finely balanced situations. I don’t think the Commission liked the idea of deciding whose voice matters and whose does not.”

The ministry yesterday said the granting of charitable status was contingent on an organisations making clear what it intended to do, with the one-year approval thus serving as “a probationary period for new charities to ensure that they do adhere to their proposed objects and activities”.

Preserve Marriage, which emerged in October 2015 and became a limited liability company that December, was able to cite its recent activities as being in line with purposes including “advancement of education, advancement of citizenship or community development and the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation”.

It opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, both of which will be put to the island’s voters by the Government, in a referendum likely to occur in June.

The group referenced the bringing of guest speakers Ryan Anderson and Tony Evans, in December 2015 and January of this year respectively, as educational conferences on marriage that were widely attended.

A film on marriage shown in February, followed by a Valentine marriage dinner at Cambridge Beaches on February 13 and a “renewal of vows” initiative in churches across Bermuda on February 14, were given as evidence of the group’s support for “marriage enrichment and family values”.

The group said it had given marriage counselling support and resources to local pastors, and had developed a comprehensive website aimed at educating the public, with more features to come.

The website includes a poll that last night had 9,188 signatures backing its cause, which Preserve Marriage said was “not intended to be political, but educational”.

The group added that the community had been given a false impression that “a loud minority are representative of the majority”. Yesterday’s statement from the Ministry of Home Affairs noted that Charities Act 2014 was aimed at putting the minister, Michael Fahy, at “an arms-length distance for decision-making relating to charities”.

The minister can hear appeals when applications are rejected, but the Act does not give him the power to reverse a positive decision, it added.

“Further appeals of decisions of the minister can be made to the Supreme Court.”