http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...t-the-us-if-youre-gay-or-a-woman-7561651.html An interesting, and IMO, quite refreshing, point of view, after all the gay bashing one reads on these pages. I do not pretend to understand homosexuality, but it seems to me that if two people love each other, how can that harm society in general?
6, out of how many?! The UK does have 'civil partnerships' for same sex couples, which is very similar to marriage in all but name.
David Cameron PM has promised to legislate for it during this government. Surprising for a con but maybe they are not all crazies. And yes states legislate for it but your federal government is required to ignore those marriages. England and Wales will have it soon. Wouldn't hold out much hope for NI but Sinn Fein supports it in principle.
Be very gland you live in Britain, there are far worse places to be gay. I was pleased to hear of David Cameron's support for gay marriage. Saddened by the churches reaction. To be expected but i don't know how organised the catholic right is in England but they are still very strong here I think they could stymie any such proposals here.
Why? They have taken very reasonable stances on homosexuality up till now. The head of the church has spoken against it but many others have expressed support.
I strongly suspect that the Catholic church has far more political infuence in Ireland than the C of E does in the UK. Rowan Williams is caught in a difficult situation of balancing the various interests within his own church, but he couldn't really be described as particularly 'Conservative', or at all 'anti-Gay'. He doesn't believe in 'gay marriage' under that name for religious reasons, but he's long been a supporter of gay rights and the legal 'civil partnerships' (even though he doesn't support them being conducted in churches).
The Catholic Church in the UK is more or less an irrelevance, certainly in political terms. Henry VIII and Elizabeth I saw to that between them (apart from the little blip of Bloody Mary), and although Catholicism has actually been legal for some time, its church has no real power, and almost no real influence at all.
Whereas the head of the Church of England could stop gay marriage from ever seeng the light of day in the UK.
No, neither the queen nor the archbishop of canterbury has that kind of power by themselves. The anglican community as a whole could, as the majority religion in a democratic country.
In theory. In practice the queen is not going to provoke a constitutional crisis by refusing to pass a piece of legislation that has been passed by parliament. She is not about to act as a catalyst for the downfall of an institution she has spent her life in the service of. Royal assent has not been withheld in over 300 years, and the last time a monarch sought legal advice on withholding it was almost 100 years ago. At a time when it was generally feared the passage of the Government of Ireland Act could provoke a civil war. Ironically the House of Lords' delaying tactics eventually helped precipitate the Irish civil war. Lizzie is not going to attempt to put the kibosh on gay marriage.
Usually, precisely the opposite is the case. The Parliament usually doesnt even present legislation that wouldnt survive her judgement. The military action against Iraq bill was one of the rare exceptions where parliament got a little uppity. She wouldnt even allow them to discuss it. so 10 pm, the night before the Iraq invasion began, parliament gave their blessings to the decision already made to invade Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Action_Against_Iraq_(Parliamentary_Approval)_Bill
That is a misreading of that use of monarchs powers. The crux of that issue was government backbenchers who disapproved of the planed war, wished to bring the power to order airstrikes under control of parliament rather than the government. It would be akin to the US congress having to vote on an airstrike rather than the president being able to order one unilaterally. The government did not want to be subject to that kind of restraint and did not want to force the issue in a vote so Lizzie acting on the advice of her government refused her consent to the introduction of the bill. It was the Government, exploiting a loophole to prevent their power being dissolved.
No, it would be akin to requiring Parliaments approval for the invasion of Iraq, like Bush did when he went to Congress and got their authorization to use military force in Iraq, before he did. And in the US, Congress is the "government"
Did Obama need congressional approval for participation in the no fly zone over Libya? Does congress debate every drone strike and approve it? If not then the president can act unilaterally. In Britain the Government had the power to act independently of parliament and did not want to relinquish that power Tony Blair, though he could have won the vote did not want to even discuss the transfer of that power from government to the parliament. So used a constitutional loop hole to shut down the discussion.
Happy days. Conservative Christians screaming about how the state should enforce their morality and everyone carrying on as normal.
