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

[marshlander]

It rumbles on!

According to the OpEdNews website it appears there may be some irregularities in the voting for Proposition 8 and this is being investigated. I wonder what you make of this ?

It seems we may have been blaming the wrong people

[marshlander]

... and there's yet more.

Governor Schwarzenegger has recently stated that, while he feels a marriage should be between a man and a woman, he does not wish to impose his view on others. He feels that the courts should be given the opportunity to reaffirm the unconstitutional nature of the imposition of Proposition 8, in much the same way that the ban on inter-racial marriage was declared unconstitutional in 1948.

More of this story here

[sweetlad86]

If the conservatives come back into power, I got a feeling things may change over here too.

I just found out that the UK has just in the past year drop the human rights pill (not sure what it is really called), we have followed line with the USA and Spain in doing so.

Not sure how that affects us though!

[yar]

It aint over till the fat person sings.

[fredv3b]

If the conservatives come back into power, I got a feeling things may change over here too.

I just found out that the UK has just in the past year drop the human rights pill (not sure what it is really called), we have followed line with the USA and Spain in doing so.

Not sure how that affects us though!

I doubt things will change if/when the Tories get back in. First David Cameron has discovered that being gay and environmentally friendly is the way to persuade people the Conservatives have really changed. In the same way that Blair ditched Clause 4 and was dismissive about the Trade Unions to persuade people that New Labour was really different to Old Labour. The truth being that political parties new and old are, at best, loose confederations of warring tribes holding a surprising range of views even if they are rarely aired in public, thanks to the work of spin doctors.

Not sure what you are referring to. Cameron has hinted at repealing the Human Rights Act* and replacing it with British Rights and Responsibilities Act. This would be a pointless act. First, the Human Rights Act only incorporated into British Law the European Convention on Human Rights to which we ratified in the 1950s, the Act only allowed the Convention to be applied by British Courts rather than forcing plaintiffs to have their case heard by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Leaving the Convention would force us to entirely leave the European Union (observation of the convention is an absolute requirement of membership) and that just won't happen there is too much money and jobs at stake.

Also, if Cameron's government were to draft a British Rights and Responsibilities Act I suspect English public opinion would demand the rights enshrined be clearly defined and immune to over-ride by the government of the day. The European Convention on the other hand has many clauses allowing the state to curtail various rights if there is a legitimate state interest, in short a legal coach and horses can (almost) be driven through the Convention at times.

As for effects on us in particular. I'm not sure what there would be. The Convention does not require same sex marriage or some form of substitute like Civil Partnerships. Other UK statute law protects gays in the workplace, etc.

*While the Human Rights Act was only a proposed law that was being debated in Parliament it was a Bill, the Human Rights Bill. When it was passed by both Houses of Parliament and given Royal Assent it became actual law as an Act of Parliament, the Human Rights Act.

[marshlander]

I'm glad to say this one is refusing to lie down.

Today's Salt Lake Tribune reports a complaint filed on Thursday with the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the Los Angeles-based Californians Against Hate accusing the church of creating the National Organization for Marriage in California as early as summer 2007 as a front group for its agenda, while failing to report the costs as required by California law. Investigation into the LDS Church's involvement into the Prop 8 vote is looking into these inconsistencies. It seems the church may have been "economical with the truth" in declaring its involvement. Whilst funds well in excess of $3m were raised by the good folk of Utah in a private capacity and the church has declared a sum under $200k, it would appear that there are leaked memos regarding all sorts of support in kind, as well as financial, to help sway the vote. I was particularly interested to see the comparison with the Hawaii situation a few years ago where Mormon leaders set up a front organisation as a coalition, because "a coalition is hard to attack" and it is easier for financial support to become less visible.