Way to make America sound like the dark ages, Mr. Blair…
Even Prime Minister Tony Blair mentioned the couple at a news conference. He wished them well and congratulated them, adding “and to all the other people exercising their rights under the civil partnership law, I think it’s a modern, progressive step for the country and I’m glad we did it.”
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
I agree with Dkel, it’s not implicit in Blair’s comments that he was criticizing America. He was simply praising England.
That said, England being more progressive than America on the issue of gay rights is nothing big. England also figured out the slavery thing before we did.
What’s really disturbing is that South Africa is more progressive on this issue than we are.
How does that make America “sound like the dark ages?”
It makes us sound like we’re in the dark ages because our politicians would never have the cajones to say what Blair did.
It makes us sound like we’re in the dark ages in contrast.
On the other hand, from what I’ve heard most Americans would support the concept of a “civil partnership law,” as Mr. Blair put it. Has anyone seen any news stories or heard anybody–British politician or otherwise–referring to this union as a marriage, as is being pushed by some groups in this dark and primitive country?
Most Americans might support a “civil partnership” law, but few lawmakers will even go that far.
The semantic arguments against “gay marriage” but for “civil unions” are laughable. If two homosexuals get a civil union and then go around calling it a marriage to their friends and acquaintances, on what grounds would you arrest them without encroaching on the First Amendment?
The end result of a civil union law in the U.S.: gay and straight couples that enjoy the same protections under the law, and a bunch of crybabies complaining that the gay couples shouldn’t call their union a “marriage” because…because…it’s just not right, dammit!
BD…
You make an excellent point…one that is shared by many on the other side of this fence from you. To wit: what’s the diff? What if I said that we currently have a “bunch of crybabies,” as you say, who are willing to turn down the enjoyment of the same protections under the law because their union would have a different name?
These civil parnerships also help non-gays as well. A parnership between two sisters sharing a home would result in one receiving pension rights upon the demise of the other. I’m glad we’ve got this law in the UK. If gay people want to call themselves married, good luck to them!
The drollest comment about this I’ve heard is “Imagine how bitchy gay divorces are gonna be!”
Too bad Tony Blair isn’t an ally of ours; oh, wait — he is.
grpakx kqwfjviab djhkwilr pukbof bagmly wpsqcko fydb