Well, it's not all good news :-(

[marshlander]

Wow! Who'd have thought a discussion on GaySpeak could be allowed to generate some passion! Thank you moderators for not shutting it down, to Spoty, for tossing a log on the fire and to Yar for taking up the challenge. I'd also like to thank Fred for his customary informed contributions.

Of course, Fred is right to remind us that the US states that have failed to provide any legal recognition of same-sex relationships should be censured. My original post was simply to bring to attention the other vote that was happening in California and which I thought would be of interest to this forum. My anger and frustration at the outcome of this particular vote was on behalf of those Californians who have gone through several years yo-yoing between being able to marry and then being told their marriages are no longer recognised. I don't see how that is good for anyone. :frown:

Would it help me understand the law-making system in the USA if I saw it as more akin to a European, rather than an English, model (I say "English" bearing in mind that other nations in the so-called UK often have different laws in specific areas)? I guess I get confused by thinking of the United States as a single country ... Member states of the European Community are subject to European law, but in many cases retain a right to veto in certain areas. They will also have their own cultures, societies and legislature. Whilst it is possible for same sex couples to marry in Holland, Belgium and Spain I don't suppose we'll be seeing gay couples walking down the aisle any time soon in Poland. In the UK we have a typically British compromise where we have marriage in just about everything but name. We just call it "civil partnership".

To follow up Frank and Fred's discussion, we do indeed vote for local candidates during a general election (an election for which the outcome will be to see who governs the country). Would-be members of Parliament will stand for election as a member of a political party or as an independent candidate in all of the country's 646 constituencies. They are elected if they poll a simple majority. The party (it is always a party, in practice) that gets the most members elected will then be asked by the Queen to form a government. The leader of the winning party will usually become the prime minister (the one-name shortlist referred to by Fred). To reinforce Fred's observation, we do not vote directly for a prime minister. We do, however, vote for someone who we think will represent our interests locally. The choice of who stands as a candidate is down to selection rules that apply to each party. Inevitably, those chosen will be selected by party activists. Whether I think an individual would do a good job or not as prime minister is irrelevant. I am not part of the process. Prospective candidates are selected by committees of old-guard activists, pitted in local elections against the other candidates. Conferences of the parties at large will vote for leaders. The leader, if a member of the winning party at a general election, will become prime minister.

Re Frank's comments about the member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), I would suggest there is no chance that he would ever become prime minister. His record within the Labour Party is far too controversial for them ever to risk electing him as party leader.

For anyone interested, the 2005 general election map is on the BBC website BBC NEWS | Election 2005 | Election Map