Oh, please.
Better late than never. We knew you would be able to catch up to us sometime. Good job, old boy! Do try to be more timely on the next issue, though.
You’re right. It’s supplanted by technology.
As it happens, I’m an American born and raised. I just happen to live in London at the moment. but don’t let that ruin the nice *ad hominem *you’ve got going there.
This response really exemplifies how facile an understanding most Americans have of the United Kingdom.
Led by whom, pray tell?
As of 1999, ninety-two hereditary peers are members of the House of Lords. A small number of vacancies have opened up, with elections to fill them held solely among the “excepted” hereditary peers and only hereditary peers may be elected. Do you dispute this fact?
Cite?
Sexual Offences Act of 1967, Lawrence vs. Texas 2003.
Open military service, 2000, US, 2011.
Gay adoption legal 2002, still illegal in certain states.
Same sex unions 2005, entailing full legal benefits, Defence of Marriage Act 1997, barring legal recognition in some states.
I’m reminded of Dan Savage’s comments where America always thinks it’s the first in the world to do something, even when they’re years behidn everyone else.
DOMA didn’t bar SSM in any states. It’s entirely a federal law. But again, the US is big and divers, like all of Europe. We can outnumber the UK with just the first few large states.
I’m reminded of the fact the SSM was legal in parts of the US before it was legal anywhere in the UK, which is precisely what I said. I’m also reminded of the fact that I didn’t say anything about being first in the world.
It was a comment about them being the opposite of us in the US, a direct response to the OP and hence not a non sequitur.
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.
Prickly Brit as I am, that’s exactly how it read from here, and quite inoffensive.
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.
Where’d you get that from? Czarcasm reminded us that England does not have a 1st Amendment (even if that turned out to be tongue in cheek), to which I replied questioning what rights should be universal even if they are not. I don’t see how my enquiring how universal the right to free speech should be might be taken as a declaration of the right to not see an ad I don’t like. Quite the opposite.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bloomberg is an independent. He was previously a Republican but it was more or less a technicality.
I’m not sure about that.
Forgive my ignorance, but what does dressing in drag have to do with homosexuality or one’s opinion of it?
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.
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.
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.
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).