A court case for same-sex marriage could still be won regardless of “regressive” amendments that were passed by MPs on Friday night, according to lawyer Tim Marshall. Mr Marshall also argued that politicians had abused their powers by attacking the human rights of an historically oppressed minority group by approving the Bill from Progressive Labour Party MP Wayne Furbert. Mr Furbert’s legislation, aimed at strengthening marriage between a man and a woman, is due for debate in the Senate on Thursday. It states that the Human Rights Act cannot override the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act, which provides that marriages are void unless they are between a man and a woman. Mr Marshall, a human rights lawyer, said the amendments offend the Constitution because they are grounded in religion — although Attorney-General Trevor Moniz believes the Bill poses no Constitutional problems. Mr Marshall told The Royal Gazette: “There is a very strong argument that the type of legislation that Government passed in the House on Friday offends the Freedom of Conscience and Religion provision of the Constitution because it is imposing a law that is quite clearly based on a religious view. “If the Supreme Court saw merit in that argument it could strike down the amendment to the Human Rights Act, and you can call it a regressive amendment, and strike out any attempt to prevent same-sex couples from getting married. “This is probably the main constitutional protection that can be advanced.”