The constitution could be breached if it was determined that the Bermuda Government’s same-sex marriage referendum had been prompted by religious beliefs.

That is the view of human rights lawyer Tim Marshall, who believes that recent calls for a referendum by church members would have resonated with parliamentarians before the One Bermuda Alliance tabled a Bill for one last Friday.

Mr Marshall, who also described the pressure group Preserve Marriage as religious “in substance”, warned that any change in legislation rooted in religion might contravene Section 8 of the constitution covering the protection of freedom of conscience.

The lawyer told The Royal Gazette: “In order for traditional marriage laws to withstand a constitutional challenge, they must be justified on secular [non-religious] grounds.

“If the underpinning of the laws is to give effect to a dominant religious view then there is a very good argument that the laws offend Section 8 of the constitution. It is possible that Government might be able to articulate a secular basis for the laws or any amendment designed to fortify traditional marriage but thus far it does appear that religious beliefs of a dominant, conservative religion is behind maintaining the status quo in order to impose a view on Bermudians, residents and tourists alike that being gay is unnatural and the work of the devil.

“In 2016, that view is not only archaic but it openly encourages the oppression of gay people by diminishing their rightful place in society by letting them know every day of their lives that their human, natural desire to love and to be loved is not recognised or respected by the state.” Mr Marshall went on to say that even the introduction of legislation recognising civil unions “falls well short of the right thing to do”.

“It is qualitatively the same as Jim Crow laws [enforcing racial segregation] where a group is reluctantly acknowledged by the majority as being equal but different in a way that requires separation.

“Heterosexuals, this way please. Gays, please stay in this line.”

Michael Dunkley, the Premier, tabled legislation paving the way for a referendum on both same-sex marriage and civil unions in the House of Assembly on Friday.

It came after Preserve Marriage lobbied the OBA to call a referendum and distributed material claiming that marriage should be “upheld as a special union ordained by God between a man and a woman”.

Mr Marshall observed that Preserve Marriage was therefore “in substance” a religious group despite its claims it represents the religious and non-religious sectors of the community.

“They are entitled to exercise the same rights and liberties that all citizens have. Where any society has to be careful is where one dominant, or any religion, influences the state to such an extent that the religious doctrine becomes the law of the land. Is legislation that strengthens the concept of marriage as being restricted to a man and a woman in substance giving us up to a religious view? If that is the case, doesn’t that then infringe the rights and liberties of others to hold a different view?”

The Referendum Act is likely to be debated in the House in the next few weeks. Once approved by MPs and enacted, the Premier then has 90 days to publish a referendum notice. The ballot must be held between 30 and 60 days following the publication.

Mr Marshall added: “The churches have tremendous influence in Bermuda society. Various churches have influence on their congregations and the congregations will include people who are involved in the political process. I have no doubt that their call for a referendum resonated with Members of Parliament. People have different views and we are starting to hear them on the House floor.

“In my view, that is the appropriate place for this issue to be resolved.”

Preserve Marriage has argued that the government must not allow “the few to decide for the many” by allowing parliamentarians or non-elected judges to make the decision.

Mr Marshall said that by calling for a referendum the pressure group is doing exactly that.

“In a case where you are talking about human rights specifically, it is quite possible that the minority will continue to be oppressed. The classic example is if you left the issue of segregation to a poll or to a referendum, chances are at that point in history the majority would have supported segregation. Chances are in terms of women’s suffrage if you put that to the society at large the majority would have said women should stay in their place. If you left it to society to give their two cents, the majority is probably going to win the day and you are going to have situations that are morally offensive and sometimes reprehensible.”