The Washington Post writes today about David Cameron's (faltering) attempt to make gay marriage a "conservative" cause in the UK, but what is more interesting to us are these comments by an openly gay Labor MP:
"...By offering the proposal, Cameron has put his party out in front of even many gay advocates here who had seen other issues, such as stiffer penalties for hate crimes, as higher priorities. Although gay groups are vigorously campaigning in support of the measure, advocates initially debated whether they should even endorse a proposal seen by some as bringing a patriarchal and archaic institution to same-sex couples.
“This is more of David Cameron trying to drag the Conservatives kicking and screaming into the modern world,” said Ben Bradshaw, a ranking Labor lawmaker who in 1997 became one of Britain’s first openly gay members of Parliament. “Of course, we’ll support it, but this is pure politics on their part. This isn’t a priority for the gay community, which already won equal rights” with civil partnerships.
He added: “We’ve never needed the word ‘marriage,’ and all it’s done now is get a bunch of bishops hot under the collar. We’ve been pragmatic, not making the mistake they have in the U.S., where the gay lobby has banged on about marriage.”
4 Comments
Very simple: In the USA 'marriage' status means Federal benefits and privileges. In England, a civil union status may have Federal benefits connected to it. Not in the USA. This is why same-sex bizarre unions (queer friendships) want the civil marriage status.
An alien can be brought legally into the USA, or may remain in the USA, if married to a US citizen, or someone with Permanent Residence. But the marriage has to be civil marriage, and for Federal standards, it must be between a man and a woman (plus other limitations avoiding incest, polygamy, etc.)
There is a whole industry in the USA marrying people for the sake of the Residency and later, the USA citizenship. It takes 7 years, in think. It is a loophole in the law which creates a lot of problems.
I heard one can get a young wife from the Philippines for between $5k and 30K. And often, as soon as the wife has the US citizenship and has already sponsored some of her relatives into the USA, she dumps the husband, and takes off. It is a small sacrifice for the opportunity to come work and live in the USA.
The immigration benefit is done to keep families together, but presents a benefit that mere friendships want for themselves, and many people abuse. It adds to the attractiveness of US Americans worldwide, and triggers an abuse of the institution of marriage, sadly. It provides a way for the Permanent Residence and later, the Citizenship to be for sale.
I personally do not believe it is wise to grant Permanent Residence to alien wives or husbands, because it can so easily be abused, and is; and it leads to many problems, like same-sex friendships wishing for the Federal benefit. Instead, married aliens should be allowed to work, but not apply for Permanent Residence; and children born to one or two aliens (legal or illegal) should not be able to run for the Presidency. No sir.
An illegal alien can swim across the river bordering Texas with Mexico, give birth to a baby, and presto(!) - the baby is a US citizen. It doesn't make sense. At the same time, some USA mothers are aborting their babies because they have not time for them. Someone has to reform those laws in due time.
The UK does not have the same legal marriage issues the USA does so this is an apples/oranges argument. In the USA, marriage is by State. Not so in the UK, hence the legal use of the word "marriage" is not nearly so important. Here in the USA it is because what is legal in one state may not be in another. Civil unions are not recognized across all state lines while the legal use of the term of "marriage" is. The same was true in Canada a decade ago when SSM was legalized there. Word came down from Parliament and it applied to all Provinces. It works differently here in the USA. BTW, SSM in Canada is a non-issue and it is at least a decade old.
cggage,
Just Google "ssm still an issue in Canada" for my rebuttal to your blatant lies and falsehoods. SSM is no longer an issue in Canada in much the same way that abortion is no longer an issue here in the United States.
News Flash: The opposition is not going away
I doubt there is much chance of getting rid of it in Canada unfortunately, same in Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark etc. however New York should be the focus for traditional marriage advocates