I'm following the updates on the Guardian.
[quote] Stewart Jackson, a Conservative, asks about how gay marriage will be consumated.
[quote] Miller says that in the bill there is no legal requirement for consumation.
The left side of the chamber is looking a little thin. Where are the Labour MPs?
So are they deciding today or what? What are the predictions?
Thanks, OP (I was the requester from the other thread...)
I think what Miller said was okayish (even though personally I believe that churches should not have to "opt in", as there are many churches/faiths (Quakers, Reform Jews, etc.) which WANT to marry same-sex couples. Looking forward now to Yvette...
I am pretty confident that this will pass. I vote Green party usually (unless there is a chance of a Tory getting in, and then I vote Labour strategically).
Oh yeah, the Unitarians shouldn't have to "opt in", either... The way in which the law is being set up PRESUMES anti-gay bigotry in Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Hinduism/Sikhism etc., which it should be assuming, because it is positing pro-same-sex marriages belief AGAINST faith, which is ridiculous and homophobic at heart.
God... frigging bigot Ian Paisley. So nice to see that his bigotry goes in so many directions. My parents named their cocker spaniel after him, as they thought the original Paisley was a dog, too.
Opt in/Opt out, it's just politics. The Opting In clause is there to exclude the religious interests from the debate all together. It's smart politiics, telling these religions that society is moving forward without them.
It has nothing to do with homophobia.
How do you prove that a straight marriage is consumated unless there is a pregnancy?
[quote] This bill in no way makes a requirement of faithfulness from same-sex couples. In fact, it does the opposite. In a heterosexual marriage a couple can divorce for adultery, and adultery is if you have sex with a member of the opposite sex. In a heterosexual marriage a couple vow to forsake all others ... A gay couple have no obligation to make that vow [to faithfulness] because they do not have to forsake all others because they cannot divorce for adultery. There is no requirement of faithfulness. And if there is no requirement of faithfulness, what is a marriage?
What the fuck kind of argument is this? That it is the NON-bonds of marriage that are holding gay and lesbian relationships together? I don't even understand the flawed logic here.
r10, I was thinking the same thing. So, following her logic, if the man in a het marriage had sex with another man, that would *not* constitute adultery... Good to know.
I thought Brits were better than this wow.
These are the Tories speaking, R12. And they are not even the mainstream of the Conservative Party. It's the equivalent of an extreme branch of the Republicans speaking - oh, I dunno, like Aiken and his rape comments. This will hurt the Tories, mark my words. Cameron et al are trying to distant themselves.
The vote isn't until 7 this evening. Most MPs will just arrive for the vote. Ed Miliband is expecting a big turn out from his party and I suspect whist not using the whip for this vote they will be strongly encouraged to be there for it.
I am not sure why Ian Paisley junior (a fool and a bigot of massive proportions) is even being allowed to comment. Northern Ireland will not be affected by this bill and whilst they generally follow England and Wales by passing act over here it is not happening this time.
Nadine Dorries is a complete crackpot R10 and had the party whip was withdrawn just before Christmas. They really seem to have all the nutters in the house right now
Oh God, another DUP man. How many do we have to listen to?
[quote]I thought Brits were better than this wow.
Nadine Dorries is also a divorcee and an adultery, on her second marriage, at least.
She's a hyper-hypocrite.
These people are just the circus. I don't know why this is getting such close attention on DL. I guess the Anti-Brit Troll is enjoying starting so many threads about it.
Hows it going?
It's going. David Lammy MP has won the speech competition so far.
The DUP are an embarrassment to Northern Ireland.
How proud I am today that David Lammy is my MP. The guy gave a GREAT speech.
Mine is one of the horrid little DUP turds.
Watching it live... I am looking forward to a lot of "re-weddings" for my friends! :) (for one lesbian couple, it will be the third time they have been wed to each other. They had a commitment ceremony, and a civil partnership. They will have been together 21 years this year.)
Okay...! "Lock the doors!"
It's interesting - I think I can tell from body language who is going to vote yes (the happy ones) and no - the group of men with arms folded over chests sitting at the back of the gallery.
I don't like the term EPIC FAIL, but this quote from the DUP bigot David Simpson says it all:
[quote] This is not the jurisdiction of this government, of any European government or any government in the world. This is an ordained constitution of God. In the Garden of Eden it was Adam and Steve. It was Adam and Eve. It wasn’t Adam and Steve.
My sympathies, r24.
Thank you R28 I go to the Shinners if I need anything done as does virtually everyone over here.
400 to 175
English people - when I was in England (London), I thought the country seemed pretty atheist, and the population, it seemed, did not think about religion or have religious lobbies like the US with the Fundamentalists - why was/is there such an opposition to Gay Marriage, with all of these Conservatives voting against it?
! @ R29
I think it is important to point out that some of those voting no are not actually against the idea of the bill but feel it is not legislatively safe. hopefully committee stage will reassure them.
Decent enough turn out. There were about 100 or so unknowns before the vote so it would be interesting to see where their votes went.
You've lost me R33
Great news - does anyone know when the Lords' reading is?
Woot, congrats UKGays! That's 70%/30%, which we would never see in the US.
I was amused, R35. But adverse to typing "LOL"!
Is this something the Lords have to vote on as well, or will they just rubber stamp it?
They've voted for 2 extra days to discuss the bill. I'm not sure what it means.
Aye, 'tis a strange old over here!
why were people voting against it?
So what's next?
My local Tory MP, Simon Kirby voted for marriage equality. Possibly the only positive thing he's done since he was voted in. Even with this I don't expect people in Brighton will return him next time round.
Well, the bill has passed the House of Commons - there's no more "discussion" on that front!
If it's a lesbian couple, the marriage is consummated when the U-Haul is unloaded.
1988 called and wants its lesbian joke back.
Northern Ireland pretty much can't ignore this now. It's mainly the predominantly Protestant parties blocking it, yet they're the parties wanting to define themselves as British. Can't have it both ways really.
Now that the vote has passed 400 to 175, can the anti-Brit assholes on DL, who've been acting like the bigoted, hard right wing Conservatives represent some kind of majority view in Britain, please STFU. The bigoted right wing in the U.S. has FAR more influence in your country than that segment of the population does here.
[quote]English people - when I was in England (London), I thought the country seemed pretty atheist, and the population, it seemed, did not think about religion or have religious lobbies like the US with the Fundamentalists - why was/is there such an opposition to Gay Marriage, with all of these Conservatives voting against it?
R32, the vast majority of the country IS basically atheist/agnostic, and doesn't give a shit about religion. The small minority that is bigoted, reactionary and conservative just made a huge noise about their opposition to gay marriage. You'll be familiar with that kind of thing in the U.S. from the way the minority Tea Party got so much press for their very much minority views.
R40 I think there were several MPs who wanted to raise more points about the detail or who hadn't had input but you can't hold the committee stage in the house. Committee is where all the legal, religious stuff etc will be discussed with unelected people so the extra two days in the house will be to discuss issues which MPs wish to raise and ask to be brought to committee.
City on fire! City on fire!
ok, thanks for answering, R49
R49, much anti-British sentiment on DL is derived from American resentment of how gay rights in Britain have progressed so much faster than they have in America. So don't expect today's events to change that.
Looking on twitter so many people seem to be for it. Not to be a complete racist, but black people from the poor parts of London seem to be the people most homophobic in their comments.
The ridiculous thing is despite making such a fuss about it now, in a few years it will be totally accepted by most of those Tory MPs. Just like equalising the age of consent, civil partnerships and repealing Section 28. All caused a fuss at the time but you couldn't find more than a few MPs who would oppose them now.
It's always the people who hate themselves that are against it.
[quote] Not to be a complete racist, but black people from the poor parts of London seem to be the people most homophobic
My MP David Lammy, who gave the most moving and stirring speech of the day, is a black person from a poor part of London. So much for your generalisations.
The next countries will be Uruguay and New Zealand, probably in that order. They will have a debate in the parliament in Uruguay in May.
R58, France is also almost guaranteed to vote for marriage equality in the next couple of weeks.
I'm aware of that R57. Hence why I said "most" and not "all". In fact, here is David Lammy's speech.
[quote]Looking on twitter so many people seem to be for it. Not to be a complete racist, but black people from the poor parts of London seem to be the people most homophobic in their comments.
That's found in the US too. It's get a lot of play for two reasons: they're a minority, they've been oppressed, and they don't support another minority trying to gain what is rightfully owed to them. I know, I know, there's tons of white people who hate gays, but you forget, you have to break down white, and then go by community. The black 'community' is heavily anti-gay. Some of it has to do with religion, some of it has to do with black men not taking responsibility for their families (homosexuality can make black men stray from their wives), and just flat out ignorance. Many black men have to be on the downlow because of it.
President Obama has been, and will go down as a hero to the gay community until the end of time. He's black, yes, now remind me now that he's half white. Regardless, Obama was majorly involved in the black community growing up, and he's extremely pro-gay, and put his entire career on the line for us.
Remember you can be the most educated person in the world, and people still can be uncomfortable with homosexuality. It's an emotional thing.
The whole UK debate is going to interesting in terms of the fallout that's going to occur within the Tory party. I don't believe Cameron will survive.
I don't think British politics has made an impact on American, as in if this passes, suddenly America will jump on the gay marriage bandwagon. Ironically, the gay marriage passages in states and cities in America led to what we're now seeing in the UK. Britain is just two points above the US in support of gay marriage, and they're both over the 50% line.
America has state rights and not a parliamentary system. That's why it's much more difficult to pass gay equality. However, the Supreme Court is going to have the final say in the end. America will get there, but it's set-up makes things much more difficult.
Just thank your lucky stars, Americans, that Obama was reelected!!
It is truly shameful when parts of Europe and South America are more progressive on this issue than the United States is. The US will need to wait until the Supreme Court renders its decision in June and possibly much later than that. So much for that shining beacon on the hill nonsense.
For numerous examples of the black people I'm talking about, check out the retweets here
Many, of course, are black Muslim.
Also seeing a lot of silly white Christian girls who still think churches will be forced to conduct ceremonies. So stupidity is all around. As usual.
Actually, it is a good question.
If lack of consummation is a recognized legal ground for dissolution of a marriage.
Then there should be an answer to how a gay marriage is consummated in order to identify the lack of which can be grounds for dissolution.
And then it starts to get complicated.
Should lack of consummation continue to be a recognized legal ground for the dissolution of any marriage as it is a vestige of an out of date understanding of what it means to be married even for straight people (should people have to be sexually intimate in order to be married? should people have to fuck in order to be married? what about people who express their sexuality in their marriage in ways other than penetrative intercourse?)
If not, then would it be fair to absent lack of consummation as a ground for dissolution of a same sex marriage and keep it as such a ground for the dissolution of a straight marriage?
And if it would be unlawful to distinguish lack of consummation between opp. sex and same sex marriages, then, in fact, what is consummation of a same sex marriage?
And does it mean that in order to be consummately married, gay spouses would have to engage in anal intercourse?
And is that fair to gay couples who don't engage in anal intercourse?
"And if there is no requirement of faithfulness, what is a marriage?"
A commitment to each other which permits sex on the side, aka an "open marriage"
But she knew that!
[quote] Should lack of consummation continue to be a recognized legal ground for the dissolution of any marriage as it is a vestige of an out of date understanding of what it means to be married even for straight people (should people have to be sexually intimate in order to be married? should people have to fuck in order to be married? what about people who express their sexuality in their marriage in ways other than penetrative intercourse?)
Good point. It does seem an outdated concept. There are so many other grounds for divorce. Perhaps it could be something a couple could decide to opt out of on an individual basis - e.g. asexual couples?? Besides, how would anyone know? It can't really be policed.
Well, all sorts of things are ignored re the reality of straight marriages. Why are they getting so picky, so ready to get out the mircroscope for gay marriage? It's just bullshit.
Don't the house of Lords have to pass it?
R60 Thanks for the link. I was discussing David Lammy with one of my friends in North London. He missed the debate unfortunately so will post the link to him.
Mike Freer was quite moving as well.
It has to go through the Lords, but with such an overwhelming majority in the Commons it'll be easy to just use the Parliament Act to pass it without approval of the House of Lords.
It should be done by the end of the year. The Commons voted that if it isn't passed by the time of the Queen's speech in Spring it can still be carried over without starting all over again.
The Independent says it might be done and dusted by late May.
On Tuesday a huge majority of MPs lent their support to gay marriage. However those campaigning against the Bill admit only that they lost that battle, not the war.
Following the 400 to 175 Commons vote, several overseas news organisations including CNN and Al Jazeera were quick to report that Britain had made it legal for gay people to marry. But the Bill is still a bill. And is not yet law.
The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill will next be examined line by line by a committee of MPs. Opponents, including the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) campaign group, hope to regroup after the second reading retreat and substantially change the legislation at this stage with a view to eventually killing it.
"Tuesday was Dunkirk," a C4M spokesman told the Huffington Post UK. "There will be lots of amendments given the strength of the rebellion."
The cross-party committee, which includes many pro-gay marriage MPs such as Labour’s Chris Bryant and shadow equalities minister Kate Green, also includes leading anti-gay marriage Conservatives David Burrowes and Tim Loughton.
Green expects MPs to offer amendments designed to ensure the European Court can not force a religious body to conduct a same-sex marriage and to allow teachers to refuse to teach gay marriage if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. But she is also wary of anti-gay marriage MPs attempting to blow the Bill up in committee.
"There is real danger of people looking for an opportunity wreck it," she told HuffPost UK.
And Lib Dem Julian Huppert, who is supporting an amendment to expand civil partnerships to include mixed-sex couples, says he expects many "dinosaur" Tories to try and wreck the Bill.
Civil partnerships for heterosexual couples is also being pushed by some anti-gay marriage MPs. But this is seen as an attempt by them to restrict marriage to religious ceremonies while the state just conducts civil partnerships.
"What we want is equality, marriage should be open to people regardless of their gender," Huppert said. "Some old school Tories are mostly trying to cause trouble and wanttot do things from stop marriages from happening."
Opponents of the Bill are also hopeful it will get bogged down in the House of Lords if it gets out of the Commons.
However as Paul Waugh at Politics Home and Isabel Hardman at the Spectator have pointed out, the arithmetic and experience of past votes appear to scupper the notion that the red benches are stuffed with anti-gay peers.
The 221 Labour peers and 90 Lib Dems combined easily outnumber the 213 Conservatives, even if all the Tories decided to vote against the Bill. Labour expects the dissent on its benches in the Lords to be small, similar to that in the Commons, where 22 Labour MPs voted against the Bill. Throw in the majority of the 178 cross bench peers and there appears to be a progressive majority in the upper House.
But C4M questions how well the Labour and Lib Dem leaderships know the minds of their own peers – expecting their Lordships to take issue with the quality of the legislation as well as the principle of gay marriage. "It is rushed legislation that is full of holes," a spokesperson said.
If last Tuesday was Dunkirk, anti-gay marriage MPs, peers and campaign groups see next Tuesday, the first day of committee stage, as D-Day.
House of Commons @HouseofCommons 1m
MPs vote by 366 to 161 to approve the third reading of #Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. The Bill will now progress to the House of Lords.
House of Commons @HouseofCommons 1m
MPs vote by 366 to 161 to approve the third reading of #Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. The Bill will now progress to the House of Lords.
I'm delirious with happiness. Lords, we're here, we're queer, get used to it.
So, what are the chances the Lords will block it? And if so, will Cameron use the Parliament Act to ram it through?
joncraigSKY @joncraig 11m
Early indication 136 Tory MPs voted against & 113 for gay marriage bill 3rd reading. Rebellion similar to 2nd reading, but fewer in favour.
How many fucking more levels does it have to pass through?
Wow, it really does seem to go through endless review, debate, and votes to pass a bill in the UK. It is exhausting just to watch it. And people thought New Zealand's five month process was too long.
If it passes in the Lords tomorrow than that's it. if the Lords throw it out then its back to the commons and is either amended and returned to the Lords, completely dispensed with or DC uses the Parliament Act and pushes it through without the Lords.
The problem is many of the Lords are elderly old bigots who shouldn't be having a say.
Cameron will use the Parliament Act if needed. It passed the Commons with a good majority including support from all main parties and public opinion is for it. There won't be much in the way of complaints if he does use it except by the swivel eyed loons.
The only real thing against using the Act is the Tory owned press complaining about it and they already hate Cameron. I am not worried about the Lords. Might be some stupid amendments but I think the Tories just want this done now and don't want to give in to their right wing.
The Lords is less useless old duffers than it used to be since they got rid of most of the hereditary peers. I know the bishops etc. are getting press but a lot and maybe even a majority of the Lords will vote for this.
R81 I too think it will probably pass through the Lords but am feeling twitchy about it which I wasn't when it came to the Commons votes. We'll know by tomorrow. Just need to move the battle on to Stormount then.
I hope they don't amend it, but I imagine they will be tempted to do so.
[quote]Wow, it really does seem to go through endless review, debate, and votes to pass a bill in the UK. It is exhausting just to watch it.
Thank you. I can't even keep up anymore with the way it keeps going back and forth and round and round.
I don't understand what the problem is. Just let gays be able to get married too. Nobody gives a fuck about churches or any other place of worship. Let them have their exemptions. Gays don't want to get married in a place where they're not wanted anyway.
By Associated Press, Updated: Tuesday, May 21, 4:37 PM
LONDON — Britain’s House of Commons has passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in England and Wales.
The legislation, backed by Prime Minister David Cameron, passed by a vote of 366 to 161 on Tuesday.
The bill will now move to the House of Lords, whose approval is also required. Members there are expected to hold their first debate in July.
If approved, the law is expected to take effect in 2015, and enable same-sex couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies, provided the religious institution they choose consents.
Such a law also would allow couples who had previously entered into a civil partnership to convert their relationship to a marriage.
While it is unable to prevent Bills passing into law, except in certain limited circumstances, it can delay Bills and force the Commons to reconsider its decisions. In this capacity, the Lords acts as a constitutional safeguard that is independent from the electoral process. In other countries this role would often be performed by a Constitutional or Supreme Court, but the UK system's emphasis on parliamentary sovereignty—rather than judicial review—means that this function cannot be properly accomplished by the British court system as all judicial rulings can be overruled by parliament.
It's a perfectly simple process R84 and one that it followed by all UK legislation.
Because of the position of the Established Church it isn't something we can do as easily as other countries anyway - well not without disestablishing the Church of England, which I'd vote for at the drop of a hat.
[quote]It's a perfectly simple process [R84] and one that it followed by all UK legislation.
Yeah, so simple they've been dragging this through the mud for years.
I am hearing conflicting reports. Some sources say the Lords will vote tomorrow. Others say they will not vote until July or the end of the year.
So this process is really going to take 2 years to complete? God forbid if England needs a new law urgently.
Cameron says he wants it be law by summer 2014. My gosh, can't they make something law quicker than that?
It goes through the same stages as it did in the commons:
1) First reading (this is a formality and is not debated or voted on)
2) Second reading - general debate on the bill's principles, followed by a vote.
3) Committee - line by line examination of the bill, including proposed amendments. (in the HoL this usually takes place in the Committee of the Whole House).
4) Report stage - the House "considers" the report of the committee, and may propose / vote on further amendments.
5) Third reading - the final yes/no vote.
If the Lords don't amend it it then goes straight to Lizzie for Royal Assent (which has not been denied since 1706, so is essentially a formality). If amendments are passed in the HoL the amended text goes back to the commons for a further round of voting, and it can then theoretically "ping-pong" between them indefinitely until both sides are happy.
[quote]So this process is really going to take 2 years to complete? God forbid if England needs a new law urgently.
My thoughts exactly.
They really need to modernize their outdated procedures.
Tell me they have a faster process to make laws than this. This is a glacial pace.
I disagree with the overall view of this article, but the writer has a point about the lack of mass street activism in the UK in favor of marriage equality. In the States, it has been a much more street activism movement.
This is how social progress used to happen
I know the only thing you’re allowed to say about gay marriage is “Yay!” and that if you say anything else you’re a weirdo hateful bigot. But permit to make just one non-yay-based observation about it. Which is this: gay marriage has utterly transformed, for the worse, the meaning of social progress.
Throughout modern history, big, democratic, civil rightsy leaps forward have had two things in common. First, they were demanded by very large and often very angry sections of the public; and second, it took ages and ages for the political classes to concede to them. And when they did eventually cave in and legislate for the new liberty or opportunity being demanded by the hordes, they tended to do so begrudgingly, often while wearing a sneer.
Born from mass, passionate demands from below and later instituted very reluctantly by those up above – that is the history of socially progressive developments. From the mass gatherings of hundreds of thousands of working men demanding the right to vote in the 1800s, to the long marches and harebrained stunts of the Suffragette movement in the early 20th century, to the painful and violent slog for equality by black civil rights activists in 1950s America, social progress was for generations understood as something demanded by the little people in the face of stubborn, fearful, unenlightened elites.
The gay marriage campaign absolutely eviscerates that view of social progress. It turns it completely on its head. It redefines social progress to mean the polar opposite of what it meant for most of the modern period: no longer the struggle of the man in the street against illiberal officialdom, but rather the struggle of right-on officials against the prejudices and idiocy of the man in the street.
It is remarkable how lacking in mass action the gay marriage campaign has been. There have been no public demonstrations at all: no gatherings in Hyde Park, no marches on parliament, no handcuffing to railings. The push for gay marriage has taken place entirely at the level of respectable society, being spearheaded by tiny handfuls of sharp-suited gay lobbyists, lawyers, celebrities, commentators and the Notting Hill/Hampstead sections of the political class.
And what have these brave warriors for justice spent their time and spilled their macchiatos raging against? Primarily, public ignorance, old-fashioned attitudes, the bigotry, as they see it, of the more unenlightened, possibly even religious (eurgh) sections of society. Indeed, backers of gay marriage explicitly counsel the upper echelons of society not to be swayed by the uninformed views of the masses. They say it is the mark of true statesmanship to ignore “majoritarian opinion” and forge ahead with “civilising measures” like gay marriage, because they are “the right thing to do”.
Gay marriage campaigners frequently fret about the allegedly tyrannical views of the populace. John D’Emilio, a former director of America’s National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, has written about gay marriage campaigners’ obsession with protecting themselves and their rights against what they look upon as “the tyranny of the majority”. Convinced that the public consists of lots of boneheaded bigots, gay marriage activists have become convinced that “[the law] is the way to change the world”, says D’Emilio, even though such a belief “would have been considered unusual for much of American history”, when it was mass action, not lawyerly diktat, that truly transformed society.
Campaigners’ fears of the public explain why they’re so averse to holding referendums on gay marriage. In the words of one activist, referendums allow “the majority [to become] the arbitrator for what is just”, when “that is the court’s role”. In short, it’s the job of the allegedly enlightened sections of society – judges, politicians, commentators – to decide what is right and to force it through in the face of possible public backwardness.
In essence, gay marriage has redefined “social progress” to mean imposing an elite block on tyrannical public passions, to mean having the right-minded rulers of society keep in check the wrongheadedness of society’s inhabitants. This echoes the social engineering disguised as social progress that was promoted by Fabian types in the early 20th century far more than it does the true social progress pursued by the Suffragettes or Rosa Parks. It is not social progress at all, really – it is social demarcation, a way for the great and the good to distinguish themselves from the thick and the old.
Doubtless the bloviating blogger at R95 also considers the abolition of capital punishment, and the decriminalisation of homosexuality, to be "not social progress at all, really..."
He/She at least knows that such apparent non-progress couldn't be envisaged by "the thick."
While I agree that the British equal marriage campaign has been rather too laid back and not activist enough, the columnist needs to be countered with his assertion that marriage equality is just a cause of the elite minority. Someone should tell him that a majority of British support marriage equality, and the opponents are the minority.
R96 I agree. Just get to the point.
I can't get over how silly the British are. They spent years bragging about how liberal their country are. hhahahaha!!!
I actually feel sorry for Cameron. Here he is the first PM to push gay marriage (and a conservative of all people) and the lazy UK gays expect him to do all the work. Well guess what? He can't do it all on his own. Why aren't the UK gays helping out by marching and making their voices heard instead of being so lazy? Wake the fuck up!
R101 hasn't a FUCKING clue how politics work in the UK...
Thanks to Camoron, the gays in the UK have other things to worry about...
I don't even see the famous gay UK people speaking out. What a mess that country is lol.
Process in the Lords as follows. First reading today. Second reading and debate 3rd June. It then goes to committee and report stage which is then followed by a third reading and all being well the passing of the bill through the Lords. I don't know where the date in July has come from for the first debate. Every single piece of Uk legislation follows this pattern.
I hear UK gays say that they just don't do activism the same way in the UK as in other places. But the antigay side sure seems to do street activism the same way other countries do. They have bombarded the media and politics with their rhetoric, and held rallies in the streets. The antigay UK side sure does believe in street activism.
R105 I think it is just a case that most people believe it's going to happen so don't see the point in shouting about it. Even with all the noise the bill still passed 70% to 30%. Even if the Lords throw it out DC will pass it anyway. All recent surveys show that the 70 - 30 statistic is representative of public opinion and it is way higher than that among the under 40s. What is the point in screaming when you already have what you want?
Things in N. Ireland is a different matter and there is still a fight to bring about full equality there. I imagine the courts may force it through there though so again street activism is unlikely to help.
That cunt at R101 has been making the same noise all week - even posted the same thing word for word on another thread.
Dear, why don't you worry about your own house given your Democratic senators just sold the U.S. gays up the river again in the immigration bill? Why weren't you out marching, putting on your own little parade of support, dear? Did you man a phone bank all day placing phone calls to your lawmakers? Yeah, didn't think so.
Shut the fuck up, already. You're just an ignorant little no-nothing troll. With a smelly cunt.
"The antigay UK side sure does believe in street activism"
And everyone looks at them and thinks "Who the fuck are these cunts?"
The battle for public opinion has already been won. Lots of marches etc. would just play into opposition plans.
The other issue is that this is not actually genuinely controversial with the average person in the UK. It's just the media is mostly owned by rich, right wing interests (who are unhappy with the Cameron government for not being right wing enough). That is why there is so much in the press giving an impression that this is causing massive interest and debate.
The vast majority of the population is either strongly for equal marriage or for/against it but in reality not that bothered that much either way. It's a Westminster storm in a tea cup.
R100/R103 - that's a bit of a...disorder...you have going on there.
Anti-British without knowing a damn thing about the place, and the embarrassing desire to laugh at your own comments.
Many years ago, my Australian relatives used to talk about something called "the cultural cringe" - it referred to the fact that many Australians would automatically defer to the British way of doing things as "superior"
In response, some Australians took the extreme anti-British position.
Now Australia is a rich, dynamic, confident, multicultural nation (unfortunately with BIG, HUGE spiders), the whole idea seems completely absurd...
YOU, on the other hand, are apparently the ONLY living embodiment of the heretofore unknown "American Cultural Cringe"...
R102 & R107 If you put as much enthusiasm into trying to get marriage equality in the UK as you do bitching about people speaking the TRUTH, you might actually have a chance of your shitty country passing gay marriage. But the British gays are so fucking lazy.
r111 - I never did mind about the little things...
And you are a VERY little thing indeed...
R111, have you failed to notice that the bill has passed the House of Commons on Monday? That was the only genuine hurdle left. First gay marriages will be next summer no matter what the Lords do.
Demonstrating is a waste of time for this issue at this time (this is not the 70s, we have no need to get attention). I could write to my MP but my MP is openly gay and exceptionally pro-equal marriage so it kind of feels like a waste of space to do that. The most I can do is to contribute to the mocking of the crazy Tories (marginalising their views). I've been doing plenty of that. It's been fantastic fun. Aggressive homosexuals, lesbian queens, I can't be homophobic because I box with gays. Joy.
I guess we Americans love to demonstrate and have rallies for our causes. British progressives seem to be rather laid back, although the Telegraph lambasted them for being non-activist.