Conservative London Mayor quashes anti-gay bus ads

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Yes, but it enabled states to maintain laws which barred legal recognition. In practice, it barred people's marriages from other states from being legally recognised.

It's done neither.

DOMA doesn't permit or forbid states from allowing SSM. You might be able to deduce this from the fact that some states permit it and others allow it, all without running afoul of federal law. Some argue that the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibits exclusion of SSM, but DOMA doesn't enter that analysis.

Recognition of marriage by states is a matter of state law, and state mini-DOMAs do affect that. Federal DOMA does not.

But 'grats on not allowing misunderstanding to stand in the way of expressing an opinion on the matter even when corrected.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibber

It's done neither.

Originally Posted by Wiki

no state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state.

A lack of the federal mandate to recognise the other state's laws allowing same-sex marriages meant that in practice, twelve states received legal sanction to pass laws against same-sex marriages granted by other states from being recognised, despite the full faith and credit clause in article 4 of the Constitution.

[Ibn Warraq]

I'm a bit loathe to dip my oar in this water considering the food fight it's turned into, by I think the OP was terribly short-sighted.

Would a Republican counterpart to Boris Johnson also forbid the city from selling the adverts?

The answer is absolutely.

The appropriate comparison for the Mayor of London shouldn't be Rick Perry, who's name was thrown out earlier, but Mike Bloomberg, the Republican Mayor of New York.

Similarly, Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudy Giuliani(also a Republican), who appeared in drag on several occasions, would also have banned the adverts.

In fact, I doubt either of them would have allowed the adverts in the first place.

[Malden Capell]

Wow, how did this thread go from homosexual hate-ads to poking holes in the House of Lords?

The Lords has problems but on the whole it has a good purpose to serve in the UK, and I don't believe any system of appointment (including inheritance) should be dismissed out of hand but considered in a neutral manner. I'm all for reforming the Lords, but I do not think election is the answer, either.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

The appropriate comparison for the Mayor of London shouldn't be Rick Perry, who's name was thrown out earlier, but Mike Bloomberg, the Republican Mayor of New York.

Bloomberg is an independent. He was previously a Republican but it was more or less a technicality.

Similarly, Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudy Giuliani(also a Republican), who appeared in drag on several occasions, would also have banned the adverts.

I'm not sure about that.

[Bisected8]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Similarly, Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudy Giuliani(also a Republican), who appeared in drag on several occasions, would also have banned the adverts.

Forgive my ignorance, but what does dressing in drag have to do with homosexuality or one's opinion of it?

[SanVito]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

In fact, I doubt either of them would have allowed the adverts in the first place.

Neatly side-stepping the US-UK bunfight upthread....

To be fair to Boris, he didn't allow it 'in the first place' either. The ads never ran. I believe the advertising company selling the ad space raised the issue when they saw what was going to run, and Boris stepped in and put a stop on it. It would've been the first he would have heard about it.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I'm not sure about that.

I'd respectfully disagree. Giuliani, if anything, was more gay-friendly than Bloomberg, or, for that matter Barack Obama. For example Rudy has marched in a number of gay pride parades, Barack Obama, even when he was back in Chicago, never has.

He was also, for a time as Mayor, while going through a rather messy divorce, living with two gay men.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Bisected8

Forgive my ignorance, but what does dressing in drag have to do with homosexuality or one's opinion of it?

I should have been more clear. He dressed up as a drag queen on a number of occasions, including pro-GLBT events to show solidarity with gays.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

I'm all for reforming the Lords, but I do not think election is the answer, either.

What's to discuss? How could anyone portray it as a good thing to have an unelected unaccountable group debate legislation and have power of veto over bills which effect the populace?

There are certainly alternatives, but they don't involve conserving archaic systems. One possibility would be having a proportional chamber and a regional chamber. Another would be to have people appointed in the short term based on demographic data, occupation, or random sampling, similar to jury service (to counter systemic bias: they'd still have access to the aides for specific legal advice - attendance is not compulsory in either chamber at the moment anyway).

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Giuliani, if anything, was more gay-friendly than Bloomberg, or, for that matter Barack Obama. For example Rudy has marched in a number of gay pride parades, Barack Obama, even when he was back in Chicago, never has.

I don't care what parade he marched in or who he lived with during his divorce. That's an absurd thing to focus on. I see Giuliani did help pass protections for gay couples and extended domestic benefits to partners of city employees, and that does count as progress. That actually matters. Of course Giuliani then opposed the same-sex marriage law that was passed here a few years ago because that's the kind of thing he does, and Bloomberg supported it. Obama has moved slower than I would like on gay righst issues, but he's at least moved in the right direction by ending Don't Ask Don't Tell and ending the government's support for the Defense of Marriage Act.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

I should have been more clear. He dressed up as a drag queen on a number of occasions, including pro-GLBT events to show solidarity with gays.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that. He has dressed in drag a few times, including once at a New York political comedy event and once on Saturday Night Live, but I don't think any of them had anything to do with gay causes.

[Malden Capell]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

What's to discuss? How could anyone portray it as a good thing to have an unelected unaccountable group debate legislation and have power of veto over bills which effect the populace?

They don't have a power of veto - only a power of delay, and even that is very rarely used. Almost all of the time it spends its time seeking to persuade and critique the decisions of the Commons and get them to agree to what it wants changed - as they are the elected chamber, it is right that they are held to account for the decisions that they have the final say over.

There are certainly alternatives, but they don't involve conserving archaic systems.

In what way is it archaic? If you mean inheritance, that portion is a minority and will probably eventually disappear; if you mean appointment, that's only been since the fifties. As a whole the House is 'newer' in composition and function than the US Senate.

I have a built-in flinch mechanism whenever someone says 'archaic'; it's a lazy term for something you consider distasteful, but age should not ever be considered a baseline to determine the merits of the system.

One possibility would be having a proportional chamber and a regional chamber. Another would be to have people appointed in the short term based on demographic data, occupation, or random sampling, similar to jury service (to counter systemic bias: they'd still have access to the aides for specific legal advice - attendance is not compulsory in either chamber at the moment anyway).

These ideas have been floated before; the regional chamber idea is unlikely because a) they will clash with MPs on constituency duties and b) clash with the Commons and ensue an undesirable power struggle. Such accountability that either House currently has would be lost.

As for short-term appointment, you will get short-termist consideration of matters. One advantage of the present life term is that the appointees cease to be beholden to anyone for their position.

Random sortition may have merits, but it would make the House unprofessional and erratic, and would lose out in procedural gaming to the Commons, and I can forsee the House picking fights with the Commons again. If it did, I can't see any accountability in that system either.

My preferred solution would be a kind of filtered sortition, so that a fixed number of Lords are chosen by a statutory Appointments Commission, accountable to Parliament, to pick out the best of the best to sit in the House; the parties would be able to draw up a longlist of preferred candidates to be their appointees, but the Commission would be able to vet them for merit and if necessary reject them.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

One advantage of the present life term is that the appointees cease to be beholden to anyone for their position.

In a democracy, we've determined that accountability is a better characteristic than immunity to outside considerations. The Lords as they stand hardly embody neutral arbitration either, given they're susceptible to division along party line.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

They don't have a power of veto - only a power of delay, and even that is very rarely used.

It's in practice a power of veto: I don't think any bill has been been proposed during the same administration a third time (after failing to pass in the Lords twice).

[Malden Capell]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

In a democracy, we've determined that accountability is a better characteristic than immunity to outside considerations. The Lords as they stand hardly embody neutral arbitration either, given they're susceptible to division along party line.

It's never quite so simple as that - for one thing, direct election of both Houses in a bicameral legislature is not as universal as you appear to assume. The second House is intended to be a cooling-off chamber to pick out the flaws in hastily-considered work by the first House. If that means one of the Houses is not elected, fine by me.

They are accountable to their fields of expertise, and without the ability to kill legislation dead, they have no need for accountability through election.

The alternative, as I have pointed out, is competition and dispute between the Houses which will undermine the accountability we already have.

It's in practice a power of veto: I don't think any bill has been been proposed during the same administration a third time (after failing to pass in the Lords twice).

Once. The Parliament Act changed the law so the Lords can only stop a bill once.

You're forgetting the fact that the Lords has only used its powers a few times times in the last 100 years - hardly a routine thing! It goes to show that by and large both Houses seek to reach agreement, rather than let a bill die.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

The alternative, as I have pointed out, is competition and dispute between the Houses which will undermine the accountability we already have.

What accountability is there in a system where Lords are appointed for life?

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

Once. The Parliament Act changed the law so the Lords can only stop a bill once.

I vaguely recall there was a relatively recent incident of a bill reaching the Lords a second time and being defeated, then abandoned. While the bill was largely the same in its second incarnation, it was proposed during two different parliamentary sessions.

I may be mistaken though.

[Malden Capell]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

What accountability is there in a system where Lords are appointed for life?

What accountability are there for judges? Look, I'm not saying it's perfect, but the alternative is a messy system where both Houses will be at each other's throats and the ensuing policies will be accountable to nobody. The basis of the UK's system is that the policy outcomes should at least in part be linked to the wishes of the public as expressed at election, and the Lords works fairly well within that basis.

I vaguely recall there was a relatively recent incident of a bill reaching the Lords a second time and being defeated, then abandoned. While the bill was largely the same in its second incarnation, it was proposed during two different parliamentary sessions.

I may be mistaken though.

I don't doubt that you're correct, but you're missing a crucial point - the government could have ignored the Lords and pushed on ahead, but the only reasons it ever declines to is because either a) it doesn't have the support of the people or b) they realized the Lords made a very good and reasonable point.

At no point can the Lords block something in the face of the public's wishes. A government backed by popular support will always override the Lords, and would only ever decline to bank on that if it realizes the idea was stupid in the first place.

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by John Mace

SSM is at least legal in several US states. The UK? Nowhere.

Everywhere, actually. Some dependent territories haven't legalised it yet, mind We just call it 'Civil Partnership'

[Quartz]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

What accountability is there in a system where Lords are appointed for life?

That's an advantage: they don't have to worry about reelection and vote according to their judgements and consciences. And it's difficult to abuse because the Lords is a revising house - the Parliament Act allows the Commons to overrule the Lords. The Lords are a reservoir of considerable experience; they've generally been significant players in public life before their elevations (yes, there are exceptions). They also tend to the elderly, so there's a considerable turnover in active peers.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by mnemosyne

: proudly waves Canadian flag :

Wow is this thread ever bizarre. The OP compared Conservative actions in the UK to conservative actions in the USA (note: not ALL of the USA, just [[social] conservatives) and it's turned into a pissing match about which country is better.

Indeed. Neither of them's a patch on us for social justice. It's like we got their strengths and fewer of their totally fucked-up obsessions.

█♣█

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

What accountability are there for judges?

Tu quoque, there is no accountability for judges.

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

Look, I'm not saying it's perfect, but the alternative is a messy system where both Houses will be at each other's throats and the ensuing policies will be accountable to nobody.

Such as how US Senators are now accountable to nobody?

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

The basis of the UK's system is that the policy outcomes should at least in part be linked to the wishes of the public as expressed at election, and the Lords works fairly well within that basis.

Except when the platform of a party changes or the public mood does, there is no corollary in the Lords. No whip system, no form of recall. Positing that it's a good thing that they can ignore the public will is precisely contrary to the spirit of democracy - Tom Paine wrote quite a bit on that subject. It's fine if one opposes democracy, but then we're arguing about more fundamental concepts.

[Acid Lamp]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

And yet, not a single member of our Congress inherits his seat.

No they buy them like good little capitalists.

[Malden Capell]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Tu quoque, there is no accountability for judges.

You misunderstand me. I'm trying to argue that if you're happy with judges being 'unaccountable', then why the hand-wringing about the Lords?

Such as how US Senators are now accountable to nobody?

I'm actually referring to the policy that results out of the legislature, rather than the individuals. The US system requires compromise and deals, and those deals are likely to be ones that the government will not answer for. The British system works on the principle of core accountability - that the government is solely responsible for everything that happens under its tenure. Accountability for policy in Britain is more direct than the US, and the life-term nature of the Lords is a part of that principle.

TL;DR - They don't need to be accountable in the mode that you insist upon. Again: direct election of upper houses worldwide is not widespread.

Except when the platform of a party changes or the public mood does, there is no corollary in the Lords.

It's not meant to be - that's the point.

No whip system, no form of recall.

There is a whip system - but it's looser than the Commons. As for recall, they are currently looking into such a system - but absolutely nobody wants such a power to be too easy.

Positing that it's a good thing that they can ignore the public will is precisely contrary to the spirit of democracy - Tom Paine wrote quite a bit on that subject. It's fine if one opposes democracy, but then we're arguing about more fundamental concepts.

They don't ignore democracy - can't you read? They work with the Commons to improve legislation. They can highlight problems and even at times flatly disagree, but in the end the will of the people will always prevail.

This is the basis of the working relationship between most upper houses worldwide.

I think this is more 'democratic' than the US system whereby two Houses with equal powers will create unaccountable compromises and/or kill genuinely popular proposals.

[tagos]

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

They don't ignore democracy - can't you read? They work with the Commons to improve legislation. They can highlight problems and even at times flatly disagree, but in the end the will of the people will always prevail.

People can't seem to understand that in a lot of places the Upper House is NOT a legislative body. Its primary purpose is the revise and refine legislation and where this brings it into conflict with the elected lower house there are mechanisms to ensure the primacy of the elected house. It is a 'stop and think' mechanism.

Certainly in the UK the appointed/unelected House of Lords is a much better mechanism for reflecting public will and concern precisely because they are not able to be ruthlessly whipped.

There is much wrong with the system but I prefer it over any system designed to prevent governments doing anything and where members of both houses are constantly concerned with individually either raising huge amounts of money or trying not to offend powerful interests.

Reform of the House of Lords is an ongoing project and one of the key issues is - if you make it elected then this is a fundamental change in the British Constitution, which is based on the primacy of the Commons.

Meanwhile it remains a repository of knowledge and expertise not electorally beholden to the party line but not able to ultimately thwart the will of the Commons.

Pragmatically it works pretty well.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Acid Lamp

No they buy them like good little capitalists.

To be fair, that's how the life peers get them too.

Step 1) Contribute a few million to the political party of your choice.
Step 2) Receive a knighthood in the New Year's Honours List for "services to business".
Step 3) PROFIT!!! Join the House of Lords.
Step 4) Incur the wrath of the tabloids and lose your knighthood again.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

You misunderstand me. I'm trying to argue that if you're happy with judges being 'unaccountable', then why the hand-wringing about the Lords?

Which is a tu quoque fallacy.

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

I'm actually referring to the policy that results out of the legislature, rather than the individuals. The US system requires compromise and deals, and those deals are likely to be ones that the government will not answer for. The British system works on the principle of core accountability - that the government is solely responsible for everything that happens under its tenure. Accountability for policy in Britain is more direct than the US, and the life-term nature of the Lords is a part of that principle.

Again, with no power of recall, talking about "accountability" is meaningless. They are not accountable to the Commons, nor the public they are meant to represent. Unless you think that being able to vote against a representative that voted to elect a head of government that proposed the peerage to the hereditary head of state in order to punish them for the poor decisions of the now indentured peer is a model of democratic accountability.

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

Again: direct election of upper houses worldwide is not widespread.

An appeal to popularity, which is ironic considering your antipathy to even representative democracy.

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

It's not meant to be - that's the point.

It's certainly not the point of democracy.

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

There is a whip system - but it's looser than the Commons. As for recall, they are currently looking into such a system - but absolutely nobody wants such a power to be too easy.

Well, you're right, but it's largely farcical given that the parties can't exactly revoke their nomination for a ward. I shouldn't have spoken in absolutes. That said, Tony Benn would certainly argue that recall of the Lords should be easier, he would have abolished the entire chamber.

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

They don't ignore democracy - can't you read?

I don't miss subtext:

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

They don't need to be accountable...

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

It's not meant to be

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

the alternative is a messy system

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

they have no need for accountability through election

Originally Posted by Edmund Burke

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

This is an appeal to tradition; the brand of direct democracy practiced in Gaddafi's Libya.

Edit:

Appealing to the fact that Lords tend to be elderly is particularly short-sighted, since it is another vector for systemic bias due to their lack of representation of the demographics of society.

[Malden Capell]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Which is a tu quoque fallacy.

Please, don't try to hide. Answer the point: do you think judges should be elected, to be consistent?

Again, with no power of recall, talking about "accountability" is meaningless. They are not accountable to the Commons, nor the public they are meant to represent. Unless you think that being able to vote against a representative that voted to elect a head of government that proposed the peerage to the hereditary head of state in order to punish them for the poor decisions of the now indentured peer is a model of democratic accountability.

I've already explained: they are accountable to their fields of expertise. As to their votes and the speeches they make, they are about as accountable as the rest of us. The Lords cannot fight a determined Commons. Therefore, the House that needs accountability, the House with the actual power, is the Commons.

The purpose is to support, not challenge, the elected Commons. I don't see why you can't grasp this. tagos (above) has also piped in, if you want to read his helpful post.

Why do you insist the only form of democracy is yours? Once again: there are numerous ways that upper houses are formed worldwide.

An appeal to popularity, which is ironic considering your antipathy to even representative democracy.

Don't troll. It's not an appeal to popularity, but an effort to reveal to you that the US isn't the centre of the world. There are numerous manifestations of democracy, and Britain's and America's are two different but perfectly valid modes.

I have no antipathy to representative democracy. I fully support and admire the elected House of Commons. It is my dedication to representative democracy that makes me oppose another elected House that would excesively frustrate its will.

It's certainly not the point of democracy.

Says you. Once again: many upper houses worldwide yadayada...

Well, you're right, but it's largely farcical given that the parties can't exactly revoke their nomination for a ward. I shouldn't have spoken in absolutes. That said, Tony Benn would certainly argue that recall of the Lords should be easier, he would have abolished the entire chamber.

And Tony Benn, frankly, is incorrect. I'm sorry, but you can go bleating about democratic principle, but I have already explained that the Commons has all the power to ignore the Lords when it wishes to.

I don't miss subtext:

This is an appeal to tradition; the brand of direct democracy practiced in Gaddafi's Libya.

Now you're just sounding shrill. The Lords are not representatives. That the Commons' job.

Edit:

Appealing to the fact that Lords tend to be elderly is particularly short-sighted, since it is another vector for systemic bias due to their lack of representation of the demographics of society.

Where did I say that their age is a factor? And ironically, in terms of racial minorities and females, the Lords used to trump the Commons until 2010 - now the two Houses are similar.

Think about this: the current government is looking into means to elect the upper house, and the starting points they have proposed is that they should have 15-year non-renewable terms. The general consensus is that this is no more accountable than the present system - doesn't it make you think that they see some added value in what the Lords provide?

Go back to your high horse.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Which is a tu quoque fallacy.

It really isn't, you know. You are misunderstanding the fallacy entirely. You might legitimately argue false equivalence but in demonstrating why it's a false equivalence you'd end up answering the point you were asked about.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

Answer the point: do you think judges should be elected, to be consistent?

It's a strawman.

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

Why do you insist the only form of democracy is yours?

I hold the unusual position that words signify meaning. In this case, "democracy" means "rule by the people". Now, technically, Lords are people. However, claiming that restraining passions by deigning to an unelected chamber that will not sway to the majority opinion is not democracy. Argue for its necessity all you like, just do not give it a label precisely opposite to its function.

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

Don't troll.

Ad hominem.

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

the starting points they have proposed is that they should have 15-year non-renewable terms.

Strawman, that's certainly not what I've been arguing.

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

The general consensus is that this is no more accountable than the present system

Appeal to popularity.

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

Where did I say that their age is a factor?

Was an addendum addressing this:

Originally Posted by Quartz

They also tend to the elderly, so there's a considerable turnover in active peers.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Gyrate

It really isn't, you know.

I'm arguing for democratic accountability in the legislature and he's bringing up the strawman of the lack of democratic accountability in the judiciary, as if I were simultaneously arguing in support of a lack of democratic accountability in the judiciary, in an attempt to spring a tu quoque.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Can we take the stuff about the House of Lords to another thread? Please?

I think Ibn Warraq hit the nail on the head, to a point: if you're going to be fair about this, you have to compare Johnson to the mayors of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco or Chicago.

On the other hand, I'm not sure Ibn got it right when he said the mayor of New York would have done the same thing. Bloomberg apparently doesn't give a shit what goes on New York city buses, though maybe he has no direct authority over bus advertising.

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Indeed. Neither of them's a patch on us for social justice. It's like we got their strengths and fewer of their totally fucked-up obsessions.

█♣█

Unfortunately, you watch hockey and it's fucking cold, which ruins everything.

[Malden Capell]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

It's a strawman.

I accuse you of hiding behind technicalities and declining to justify your position.

I hold the unusual position that words signify meaning. In this case, "democracy" means "rule by the people". Now, technically, Lords are people. However, claiming that restraining passions by deigning to an unelected chamber that will not sway to the majority opinion is not democracy. Argue for its necessity all you like, just do not give it a label precisely opposite to its function.

Rule by the people? The House of Commons rules. The Lords advises and scrutinises. It can delay, but not block.

Ad hominem.

Strawman, that's certainly not what I've been arguing.

I know it's not, please pay attention. I'm saying to you that the Lords has a range of advantages that people here find preferable, one of them being their long term and independist stance. This proposal is an attempt to retain it.

Appeal to popularity.

Not quite. It's something that a lot of people want to retain. Is your position then, that it should be elected even if it's destructive to the basic principles of our constitution?

Was an addendum addressing this:

Fair enough; nonetheless you haven't been very good at producing any convincing arguments, yourself - only accusations of logical fallacies. That in itself could constitute a fallacial stance.

I'm arguing for democratic accountability in the legislature and he's bringing up the strawman of the lack of democratic accountability in the judiciary, as if I were simultaneously arguing in support of a lack of democratic accountability in the judiciary, in an attempt to spring a tu quoque.

In the US, the Supreme Court has the power to strike down Congressional laws and interpret legislation. That's a phenomenally powerful legislative power, and one which our courts absolutely don't have. The US Supreme Court has more extensive legislative powers than our House of Lords.

[tagos]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

It's a strawman. <etc>

You are completely ignoring the substantive points of his posts and you appear to have no understanding at all of the different roles upper houses play in different forms of representative democracies.

The result is that what you think are telling points are irrelevant in the specific context of the British political system where the upper house is not a distinct legislative body but one subject to the will of the elected House of Commons which at the moment is the sole repository of electoral legitimacy.

We are a parliamentary system that is explicitly not built as a system of checks and balances designed to keep a seperately elected and independent Executive in check.

That is the role of the House of Commons.

All the house of Lords can do is scrutinise and propose amendments to legislation put to it by The Commons. It cannot block finance bills or bills related to the manifesto of the government.

Even if it refuses to pass a bill it can, has been and will be over-ridden by the Commons. In practice it rarely ever comes to this as The Lords is aware of its role and the consequences that would follow. The least of which would be the thwarted government appointing however many hundreds of new peers out of thin air it needed to get its way.

I prefer our system to the US one one where politicians on a permanent election footing pander to rich and powerful special interests.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

In the US, the Supreme Court has the power to strike down Congressional laws and interpret legislation. That's a phenomenally powerful legislative power, and one which our courts absolutely don't have.

The ECHR does. Well, the latter, anyway.

[Malden Capell]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The ECHR does. Well, the latter, anyway.

True, and it doesn't seem all that popular

[tagos]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The ECHR does. Well, the latter, anyway.

It can, just as our own Supreme Court can, require changes in a law to comply with its rulings in its specific field. The enforcement of the decision lies with European Ministers.

It hasn't the same wide-ranging power and remit as the US Supreme Court though.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by tagos

one subject to the will of the elected House of Commons

It isn't though. They're subject to the laws of the country and there is marginal, unenforceable (without a means of recall) party discipline for peers that are not independent.

I was never under the misapprehension that both chambers could propose bills. I just don't think an unelected chamber should have power of scrutiny over bills. The fact that they cannot propose legislation is essentially insubstantial. Arguing that they do not "rule" just divorced them even further from the democratic process.

The Supreme Court does not really have legislative power. They have the power of judicial oversight, determining whether specific acts (and their implications or methods through which they are enacted) are in concordance with the Constitution based on test cases. They don't convene to discuss acts independent of such cases, nor do they communicate explicitly with the legislature. I've discussed issues with their appointment in another thread.

Compare that to the UK, where there is no entrenched Constitution to refer to and the upper echelons of the judiciary sat in the House of Lords until reforms introduced by the previous government.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I think Ibn Warraq hit the nail on the head, to a point: if you're going to be fair about this, you have to compare Johnson to the mayors of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco or Chicago.

I accept this as a fair criticism of the OP - it's a bit unfair to compare London to the entire US; London/NYC is more comparable, and I am unaware of any NY mayors taking a strong anti-gay stance (although Giuliani was a fruitcake in other ways). In fact ISTR Ed Koch being presumed gay, although a quick peek at his Wiki (oo er) reveals that his standard response to questions about his sexuality is

Fuck off.

On the other hand, as has already been pointed out, Conservative PM David Cameron is also currently in the pro-SSM boat and while I'm sure there are local and national politicians of various stripes who are anti-gay to differing degrees (and certainly the bishops in the Lords are fairly grumpy about it) it is definitely not a huge political issue here.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Malden Capell

Don't troll.

You're not allowed to accuse other people of trolling in this forum, and you made a couple of other inappropriate personal comments as well. Don't do it again. And both of you should take this British parliamentary discussion to another thread. I let it go for a while here, but it's a distraction and I don't want to see it clog this thread up any further.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

On the other hand, as has already been pointed out, Conservative PM David Cameron is also currently in the pro-SSM boat and while I'm sure there are local and national politicians of various stripes who are anti-gay to differing degrees (and certainly the bishops in the Lords are fairly grumpy about it) it is definitely not a huge political issue here.

I agree with the underlying point of the OP, which I take to be "Britain is nicer to its gay people." I just think that the answer to the question the OP actually poses- "can you imagine a Republican doing this?"- is yes.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I agree with the underlying point of the OP, which I take to be "Britain is nicer to its gay people." I just think that the answer to the question the OP actually poses- "can you imagine a Republican doing this?"- is yes.

I agree with this although it's becoming less common in most areas. However, as another counterexample, some of the major congressional proponents of SSM in New York State were Republicans. Now there may be many reasons for them to do this other than idealism, and Republicans in NYS are sort of like Democrats in Texas before they went completely red*, but it is another counterexample to the thesis.

*Witness the spectacular downfall of more than one Teahadist in NYS in the 2010 election.

[zookies]

Are Repub's in New York for SSM or for a SSM ballot measure? At least California has put it to the voters rather than deem it so by the courts. (or court jesters)

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by zookies

Are Repub's in New York for SSM or for a SSM ballot measure?

Same-sex marriage became legal here about a year ago as the result of a change in the law. Some Republicans in the state legislature did support it, and the measure would have failed in the assembly if they hadn't.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I'm conflicted here. While I don't support the concept of "curing" gay people, isn't there a free speech issue involved, too? The article doesn't really address that.

they don't have free speech in the UK.

[Really Not All That Bright]

But that's okay, because we don't have cake in America.

[Randvek]

Reminds me of a joke. What do you call a Democrat in the UK? A conservative. What do you call a Republican in the UK? A lunatic.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

But that's okay, because we don't have cake in America.

Hey, you were offered "cake or death". It's not the UK's fault Americans went for the other option.

I'm fairly sure that Boris doesn't have the power to ban this sort of thing from all venues inside the M25, but TfL and the Mayor's office do have responsibility for public transport and this was bus-side advertising. Free speech doesn't mean a guaranteed platform to speak from, no matter what country you're in.

[Mijin]

Originally Posted by Magiver

they don't have free speech in the UK.

We may not have a bill of rights but the restrictions on free speech in the UK (libel, obscenity, national security, shouting fire in a theatre etc) are little different in practice to the US.

The only real practical difference is that we have explicit rules on hate speech.
And as I said upthread, while I can imagine ads like this running in the US, if you were to invert it to "we will turn you gay" I'm sure it would not be permitted on whatever grounds (e.g. obscenity).

[Kenm]

Originally Posted by Magiver

they don't have free speech in the UK.

The English Bill of Rights, 1689. Wikipedia:

freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

. . . In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution.[6] A separate but similar document, the Claim of Right Act, applies in Scotland. The Bill of Rights (1688 or 1689) was one of the inspirations for the United States Bill of Rights.[citation needed]