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

[fredv3b]

america are stuck in dark ages maybe obama will turn the light on?

I doubt Obama will cause a revolution in American thinking, don't forget that is, in fact, on record as opposing same-sex marriage. He has described marriage as a 'sacred union' and stated that 'God is in the mix'. It is tribute to his skills as a politician that despite that he managed to oppose Proposition 8 in California. That said he is in favour of 'Civil Unions' basically same-marriage in all but name, a very similar solution to the UK's Civil Partnerships. However how much he can and will push the issue from the Oval Office remains to be seen considering that is very much within what maybe regarded as the proper realm of the states.

It's the 21st Century and yet we are stepping back in direction?

I honestly do not know what to say. I can not conjure any comment, because I am shocked that this has been allowed. I understand the USA are much more, how can we say it... deeply religious than over here, but this is just pathetic.

Makes me feel proud to live in England.

First the English aren't religious at all, let alone deeply. We invented Test Match Cricket in order to give ourselves some form of concept of Eternity and why the Church of England appears to be the world's least demanding religion. However joking aside, Americans truely believe in Democracy (unlike their founding fathers, who had a healthy skepticism) the people of Califnornia believe their Constitution should expressly define marriage as being between one man and one woman, there is no-one to stop them (with the possible exception of the California Supreme Court in a lawsuit that has been filed regarding the constitutionality, if there is such a word, of the ammendment to the State Constitution).

[fredv3b]

I say so-called, because there are differences in the law in the countries of the UK. In that sense it doesn't strike me as totally "united". Scotland often does things differently from England and Wales. As an example, an area I know a little about (i.e. education) does not have a national curriculum for the UK, but four quite different sets of legal requirements; one each for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There have also been differences in the application of the law relating to civil partnerships, although these may just have been matters of timing.

Ah, I see where you are coming from. From my point of view, the fact that we are a United Kingdom does not mean that its 4 constituent nations are merged into one (admittedly from a practical point of view England and Wales can often be taken as one [dons asbestos over-garments in preparation of flaming from Welsh members of GS]). One of the express provisions of the negotiations that lead to the Acts of Union between England and Scotland in 1707 was that Scotland would retain its own Legal system and its own Education system, 300 years own they remain distinctly Scottish. You are also correct to point out differences in Civil Partnerships, my understanding (someone please correct me if I am wrong) is that these differences essentially arise out of differences in the legal systems of England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, a single set of laws regarding Civil partnerships that made legal sense in England & Wales (e.g. was compatible with Inheritance law, Rules of Criminal Procedure, etc.) would simply not have made sense north of the border. I have no idea why the Government chose to have different dates from which the laws were effective from in different parts of the UK, if anyone can enlighten me I would be grateful.

Interestingly the Civil Partnerships Bill was a case of reverse devolution with regard to Scotland. A Civil Partnerships type Act was within the powers of the Hollyrood Parliament but they choose to send those powers back to Westminster. This allowed for Civil Partnerships to be pretty much equivalent in all parts of the UK (in the same way that heterosexual marriage is pretty much equivalent in all parts of the UK), the cynic in me also sees that it allowed MSPs to avoid loosing votes from religious Scots (the Scots being much more religious than the English).

Conflict of Interest:- I am half Scots though I consider myself English but am Scottish graduate.

[luke500]

I know it sounds harsh but do you think Obama should bother himself over it, i mean, George Bush has left him with a country thats tearing at the seams. Face it, Americas mlitary hasn't won a war in a while and it is impossible to win this phoney "war on Terror" simply because you cant beat terror, it doesnt wear a uniform does it? you cant shoot it can you? America may as well start fighting its self as its causeing as much terror in iraq as its hoping - Supposedly - to expell. Almost all developing countrys hate america, whats it done for them besides scareing them into submission? ok, im starting to get off track, what im trying to say is Obama is trying to fix this, and he needs the full support from the majority of the people in America, hes not going to be worryed that the gays in california cant marry if all the straights back him. Suppose he pushed gay marrage in california and he lost those votes, he might not be able to stand up for a second term, then he wont get anything done... man im not even sure what im saying, im going to go now.... *tip toes away from the computer*

[fjp999]

found this fascinating survey on another forum with an interesting discussion: Sex uncovered poll: Homosexuality | Life and style | The Observer

some quotes: "Same sex marriage has been legal in the UK since 2005 , but 45 per cent of Britons still feel that gay couples should not be allowed to get married."

"(37 per cent) of those aged 16-24 also oppose it."

"many Britons still vehemently oppose homosexuality. Fifty-six per cent of the population currently believe that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children"

"Most striking of all, almost one in four Britons (24 per cent) believe that homosexual sex should be made illegal."

All hail Britons modernity hehehe

*at least Americans can put our blame on pathetically, deeply religiousness voters but what will Britons blame their neighbors opinions on?

I found this remark on that forum very current:

"I reckon Obama doesn't support gay marriage because he recognises it's only a religious ceremony that has decreasing and dying relevance in the modern World.

"Marriage" is being replaced with legal and civil rights. A contract in law.

"Marriage" is being phased out as a necessary concept in society.

"Marriage" will soon be seen as an expensive, unnecessary, archaic and out-of-date practice.

"Marriage" will be relegated to those few religious diehards that fail to accept the New World Order of society and civic relationships."

posted by a Scotsman.

I have found most of this conversation very educating but the boldest of statements concerning a huge nation that maybe the commentator has neither visited or lived in rather startling. I lived in Japan for 10 years and would not dare make such bold statements of Japan as some have been made from watching a few news pieces from the BBC...

I knew my lame attempt at humor wouldnt be understood but the USA did do away with the Royal Family rule of the USA - wasnt that the point of the Boston Tea Party?

also, I wasnt suggesting that Vaz was a likely candidate for Prime Minister but just the fact that he was one of only 14 ethnic minority MPs in a parliament with 646 seats. According to the last census taken in 2001, some seven percent of Britain's 60-million population are ethnic minorities, which would translate to more than 45 parliamentary seats.

[fredv3b]

Suppose he pushed gay marrage in california and he lost those votes, he might not be able to stand up for a second term, then he wont get anything done... man im not even sure what im saying, im going to go now.... *tip toes away from the computer*

Luke, have the courage of your convictions! I agree with you.

[fredv3b]

found this fascinating survey on another forum with an interesting discussion: Sex uncovered poll: Homosexuality | Life and style | The Observer

The article does not give any details on who performed the survey, how they performed it (telephone, street survey, internet poll), who paid for it etc. So I have no particular reason to believe its a reliable survey.

some quotes: "Same sex marriage has been legal in the UK since 2005 , but 45 per cent of Britons still feel that gay couples should not be allowed to get married."

This is not quite true. We have Civil Partnerships in the UK, they are a close approximation of Marriage but they are not Marriage. I'd be interested to know how many people are OK with Civil Partnership but not Same Sex Marriage.

"Most striking of all, almost one in four Britons (24 per cent) believe that homosexual sex should be made illegal."

This statistic really makes me suspicious about the accuracy of the poll. I am very doubtful that a quarter of Britons don't think the Police have better things to do than make enquiries as to what is going on in peoples private bedrooms.

That said you are right to point out a somewhat holier than thou tone that has crept into this thread, for which I apologise.

I knew my lame attempt at humor wouldnt be understood but the USA did do away with the Royal Family rule of the USA - wasnt that the point of the Boston Tea Party?

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't "No Taxation without Representation" a great complaint of the time. The implication of which is that the Colonies, rightly, realised that in practice taxes were imposed by Parliament, even if in name they were imposed by HM The King.

[marshlander]

... I have found most of this conversation very educating but the boldest of statements concerning a huge nation that maybe the commentator has neither visited or lived in rather startling. I lived in Japan for 10 years and would not dare make such bold statements of Japan as some have been made from watching a few news pieces from the BBC...

Thanks, for reminding us of this, Frank. You are, of course, correct and I apologise if my outspokeness has caused offence. I was trying to confine my remarks to the specific situation of the effects on those involved of the on again/off again marriages in California.

... also, I wasnt suggesting that Vaz was a likely candidate for Prime Minister but just the fact that he was one of only 14 ethnic minority MPs in a parliament with 646 seats. According to the last census taken in 2001, some seven percent of Britain's 60-million population are ethnic minorities, which would translate to more than 45 parliamentary seats.

Again, you are correct although what is to be done about it is not altogether clear. Despite a number of attempts at positive discrimination during selection procedures over the years women and members of ethnic minority communities are still under-represented in parliament. Is the solution more positive discrimination? I can quite take the point of any member of those under-represented groups who has stated they would not want to be perceived as having been put up for election on the grounds of their race or sex. For whatever reasons, members of specific groups in society are not putting themselves forward for selection. Were there more "minority" candidates standing for election, it's quite likely more would be elected. I suspect, though, that even this answer is a simplification of the full story. Who knows what happens in party election committees :confused:

[fjp999]

The article does not give any details on who performed the survey, how they performed it (telephone, street survey, internet poll), who paid for it etc. So I have no particular reason to believe its a reliable survey.

again, I am not an apologist for surveys but have noticed that when a survey brings data that one agrees with it must have been performed with great accuracy but if the given data goes against ones beliefs. Here is what was posted by one member on the other forum:

"The Observer is a slightly right of centre heavyweight UK Sunday newspaper, ICM is a well-known polling company, the usual 1,000 suspects aged 16+ were interviewed."

I do not know where he got his info but one could always contact the Observer and ask...

Another interesting point folk have against surveys is that they say "No one ever polled me!". I have been polled a couple of times, maybe because I still have a land line. I think one of the surveys was by a large group but another may have been by one party or another and the questions were a bit more opinionated. In the better surveys questions are considered with great care and a lot of expense is used to make surveys as accurate as possible. It is a science, even if only a social science I have also been involved in a number of focus groups. They are fascinating. If anyone has a chance to join a group, not only is the pay very very good but the discussion is fun especially when it involves wine tasting, lol... I was lucky enough to be in one with the subject of local San Francisco politics during one election there.... great fun.

Not sure if Marsh is still a member of the forum I am using info from but if anyone wants the addy I believe membership is currently open but I can generate an invite as well.

This is not quite true. We have Civil Partnerships in the UK, they are a close approximation of Marriage but they are not Marriage. I'd be interested to know how many people are OK with Civil Partnership but not Same Sex Marriage.

You are correct Fred, cant imagine the newspaper getting such a detail wrong. Maybe they use Marriage as that is what the general population understand CPs to be... a new member joined recently saying he was going to wed his partner not have a union... so it seems that terms are used in a mix match kinda way.

I am sure there have been surveys done on that very issue in the states as that is the big issue over here: Marriage VS Civil Unions...

This statistic really makes me suspicious about the accuracy of the poll. I am very doubtful that a quarter of Britons don't think the Police have better things to do than make enquiries as to what is going on in peoples private bedrooms.

Again, I dont think the question had anything to do with tax payers desire for the police to monitor activities in private bedrooms but was more of a social question... probably more on the lines of "Do you think those filthy fags buggering each other up the arse should be put in prison?"

*** sorry, thought I would have time to respond to all but gotta see my therapist... laterz.

[fjp999]

That said you are right to point out a somewhat holier than thou tone that has crept into this thread, for which I apologise.

Thanks, for reminding us of this, Frank. You are, of course, correct and I apologise if my outspokeness has caused offence. I was trying to confine my remarks to the specific situation of the effects on those involved of the on again/off again marriages in California.

No need to apologize guys, I think you both have stuck to the facts very well.

Again, you are correct although what is to be done about it is not altogether clear. Despite a number of attempts at positive discrimination during selection procedures over the years women and members of ethnic minority communities are still under-represented in parliament. Is the solution more positive discrimination? I can quite take the point of any member of those under-represented groups who has stated they would not want to be perceived as having been put up for election on the grounds of their race or sex. For whatever reasons, members of specific groups in society are not putting themselves forward for selection. Were there more "minority" candidates standing for election, it's quite likely more would be elected. I suspect, though, that even this answer is a simplification of the full story. Who knows what happens in party election committees :confused:

Yeah, dont really understand the full system over there but if things are happening in committees, and those committee meetings are in secret???

Guess there is no one perfect system, or is there?

[yar]

I've just read the blog to which Fred linked. If you haven't seen it yet I would urge you to have a look at it.

:frown:

It dose not look good according to the blog, if you chose to be a negative thinker, I on the other hand am more positive. Now that a more liberal party is in control it will take time to undo the sins of the past. By the looks of the ages of the Supreme court . Obama will be appointing some new ones thus sawing the court to be a little more liberal. Which will help I am sure.