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

[fredv3b]

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.

I agree, thanks to the moderators for not shutting this down. Marshlander is too kind in his descriptions of my postings, I would tend to describe them as half relevant facts cobbled together in the hope of creating the appearance of a decent argument.

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.

And thank you for starting the discussion [general mutual backslapping]. Indeed I would go so far as to suggest that it was, from our point of view, more important than the Presidential vote. I would suggest that overall it was a very bad night for gay rights in the US. For those interested may I suggest you read this posting from a Conservative gay blog in the US.

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:

Unfortunately, such can be the nature of the American law making system, or rather systems

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".

Apologies if this answer is rather long.

The EU and the US are both federal in structure. That is to say there is a central federal government and a number of member states (of the federation). Power is shared between the Federal Government (read European Commission, European Council, Council of Ministers & European Parliament for the EU example) and the government of the member states. A constitution (of sorts for the EU) prescribes how those powers are distributed and allows the Federal Government to over-rule the governments of the states with regard to certain specified issues. For example, in both the US and the EU marriage, including same-sex, is a matter for the states. In both the US and the EU member states have to recognise each others marriages in general, Britain can't believe that Dutch marriages just aren't proper marriages (for the US read 'full faith and credit'). That said member states aren't forced to recognise marriages performed in other member states that just wouldn't be valid if performed in their own. The Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA, US Federal Law) expressly permits states not to recognise gay marriages performed by other states. (Some legal scholars have argued this part of DOMA to be utterly redundant legislation, if the US constitution mandates that they be recognised then its constitutional and liable to be declared so by the US Supreme Court, if the US constitution does not mandate such recognition then its just pointless double legislation.) I should at this point mention that DOMA also prevents the US Federal Government from recognising gay marriages (for example, in tax returns), this is a distinct difference from the EU example as the EU in terms of its federal government does not AFAIK recognise in any practical way any particular couples marriage.

This brings up another important difference between the US and the EU examples. The US has a federal Constitution (Capital C) that over-rules ordinary federal law (and indeed state constitutions and state laws), the EU has no equivalent Constitution (Capital C), the so called constitutional treaty would only have modified the effective working constitution (small c) of the EU, it would not have been law that over-ruled subsequent ordinary EU law. Similarly, the states of the US each have their own state Constitution which similarly over-rules ordinary state law, but the England has no equivalent Constitution (Capital C).

However little of this federal type stuff has been driving the chopping and changing of the status of gay couples in California. This has been driven by the nature of the Californian legislative system, the nature of which I am not familiar enough on to comment on beyond the following: California has a state Constitution that can over-rule ordinary state law (as mentioned above), both ordinary state law and the state Constitution can be changed by simple voter initiatives (collect enough signatures, get it on the ballot, it will come up for a vote on election day). Changes to ordinary state law enacted by the state legislature can be vetoed by the Governor (a former body-builder and bad actor of Austrian origin who has crossed words with London Mayor Boris Johnson). In fact the legislature had indeed passed gay marriage type legislation but was vetoed by the Governor who said that it should wait for the outcome of the Supreme Court case which in turn triggered this ballot initiative of which we are upset about.

Clear as mud? Anyone who would like to point out any errors or omissions in the above is most welcome to do so.

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.

Agreed no chance for Vaz. If you want a ethnic minority MP in the Labour party with a chance of maybe one day becoming Party Leader then I suggest David Lammy MP for Tottenham, Privy Councillor and Minister of State for Higher Education and Intellectual Property.

P.S. What do you mean 'so-called UK'?