Anglicans implode over Gay Rights

Four years ago in the crypt of St Paul’s Cathedral, I watched that supreme diplomat Archbishop Robin Eames trying – not to square the circle exactly – but to dodge around it as he presented the Windsor Report on ways of holding the Anglican Communion together after the election of the openly gay Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. It was a good try but now, it seems the scales are tipping more and more heavily against him. Later the same day, I attended a riveting debate on homosexuality and the church between the senior US bishop and Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria. Akinola wouldn’t even look at the American; hisi most telling point was that if he moderated his stance in Nigeria, the Muslims would clean up and the church would be doomed. Now, ahead of next month’s Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops,Akinola and 300 other Anglicans meeting in Jerusalem have turned their fire on the Abp of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

The near schism, (or maybe not so near), has spread to the Church of England itself, where the sole Asian-born bishop Nazir-Ali will boycott Lambeth The best review of the Jerusalem gathering I’ve read is by Stephen Bates of the Guardian, who concludes that the gay issue is a common denominator for all sorts of other differences

Sad to say the least, if you regard Anglican toleration and mutual respect for difference as a strength and not a weakness, as I do. I wonder if the rift will seriously spill over into the Church of Ireland and the rest of Irish Protestanism? As we have seen in the Iris Robinson row, the embers are smouldering.

  • Surely the title “Gay rights” is misleading when the issue seems to be the ordination of gay clergy.

  • eranu

    churches are only going to get themselves into a mess if they try and package Christianity to fit in with what current society thinks. by doing this they are altering the bibles teaching from truth to something made up to sound nice to ‘man’. essentially false teaching.
    homesexuality is a sin. sin is not something to tolerate as ok, its sin. the bible is clear on that. if society doesnt like that then tough. it doesnt matter at all how appealing Christianity appears to society, the only important thing is to stick to the truth.

  • joeCanuck

    Brian,

    I saw on a previous thread that you used to be a reporter here. I would probably recognize you if I saw you.
    But I’m a little curious. What is your connection, are you a local?
    Nice to get non-navel gazing articles by the way.

  • Greenflag

    joecanuck,

    ‘Nice to get non-navel gazing articles by the way.’

    True up to a point :). However what with threads on Iris etc it could appear to some of us ,that we are being transferred from navel gazing to butt hole gazing 🙁 The former while ultimately pointless may be a preferred ‘timewaster’ for those of us who are not yet ‘converted ‘ to gayness in all it’s new found splendor 🙁

    Wonder what Henry VIII the founder of ‘Anglicanism ‘ would have to say about these new rear end favouring bishops?.

    Off with their heads probably.

    Would God/Allah/Jehovah approve ?

    They once again appear not to have tuned in to the debate except by proxy vote . The debate seems to be focused on the scribbles of two thousand year dead scribes who edited and added in to the Book what seemed to them to be missing from the best selling script 🙁

    This latest Anglican rear enders debate is once again confirmation if ever it was needed of the truth of an early USA president John Adams who uttered words that would now see him unelectable in the countru he founded

    ‘This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it ‘

    But of course there is more to religion than bum loving Anglican bishops or Catholic paedophile priests or Islamic mujahadeen -there is the Art and the spectacular architecture , churches and the palaces St Poitiers -Vatican – Westminster -the Alhambra etc etc .

    Who was it who once said

    ‘After I go , appoint a spokesman for me and make sure he lives in a giant palace – so that people will remember my words about the ‘meek’ inheriting the earth . And make sure there are plenty of layers between the people and their God . Like me they will have to go through me to get to the big guy -even though the big guy is really me . I know it’s confusing but so to is the fact that my father was not Joseph but God -i.e himself or me and my mother Mary was not married to my real father but that doesn’t bear thinking about too much .

    And if you are still confused remember the Holy Ghost thats the other one of us trio who are , were and always will be because when it comes right down to it as Ron Hubbard the founder of Scientology put it there’s nothing wrong with making up stories about galactic warriors invading earth , except that scientology is’nt found in the science fiction section of your library . Hubbard when he realised that people were taking his ‘fiction ‘ seriously is reprted to have said ‘ I’d like to start a religion , that’s where the money is ‘

    Henry VII copped on very quickly too – as he and Thomas Cromwell ‘plundered’ the English and Irish monasteries in the biggest heist since the Nasdaq drop back in 2000 .

  • Brian Walker

    In answer to above query. Local. Londonderry/Derry man. Baby boomer, a proud member of THE generation, as the Beach Boys proclaimed us. Uni in England many, many years ago.

    Like most of us, stunned by the outbreak of the Troubles. In 1970, fretted in journalist training in Cardiff, in case it would all be over before we got back. Would never have gone back, if no Troubles, I admit. Bad mistake? Who can say?

    Successively BBC NI reporter, Ed TV Current Affairs and Political Ed 1970-83 (BBC trained, thus the careful dual take on the Maiden City). Various BBC editorships in England, including Current Affairs Commissioning Editor for main speech network Radio 4; Editor Political and Parliamentary Programmes at Westminster to 2001. London editor Belfast Telegraph 2002 -6. Now part time academic role and commentator.

    That’s the CV and the brief outlook. Very even handed me, and very happy on both sides of the water and needless to say, both sides of the border. (and the Atlantic too, come to that).And oh – in the Waterside and Creggan. (Enuff Derry – Ed)

  • joeCanuck

    Thanks for the info , Brian. Quite the interesting career.

  • ulsterfan

    With so much division in the Anglican Communion what chance is there of a coming together with Rome who at present are at least 100 years behind the rest of Christendom on subjects of homosexuality ,ordination of women priests and the Eucharist etc.
    Church unity seems to be impossible.

  • cany

    There is a lot more to this whole thing than just the issue of glbt clergy (which have been in the church via the don’t ask don’t tell policy, first in the Roman Church, and certainly now in the Anglican Communion).

    Here in California (USA, the state Supreme Court just ordered that gays be allowed to marry (in the civil sense… however, this does NOT require ANY pastor or church to follow suit) which over 60% of Americans polled agree with.

    The issues started MANY years before Gene Robinson was voted in as Bishop of New Hampshire and contain elements including women’s ordination (WO), revision of the BCP, even remaining sore spots over the trial of some US Bishops that didn’t turn out like some wanted.

    It is a complex issue.

    It would appear that not only is someone penning ALL of Akinola’s talks (if he is interviewed live, there is a HUGE inconsistency in language AND idea), it is important to remember that they now say they are not leaving the Communion, but will work from within… somewhat of a mystery since at least in TEC, I seriously doubt that any talk of a “covenant” (read hierarchy with imposition of rules and penalties) will occur. Other worldwide Anglicans have surmised likewise. I suppose if hierarchy was wanted, many would simply move back to the RCC.

    The American Church, TEC, has a lot on its plate right now, though the “massive” departures amount to about 3% of parishes, and one diocese (all this in court or has been or will be).

    This is far from over.

  • Different Drummer

    “Churches are only going to get themselves into a mess if they try and package Christianity to fit in with what current society thinks”ERANU

    Like to pick a favorte time when things were less trubulent how about when they used to burn queers at the stake?

    How far forward would you like to move on from that time or would you have us ALL go back to it?

    Careful how you answer now…

  • abucs

    Hi Brian,

    “his most telling point was that if he moderated his stance in Nigeria, the Muslims would clean up and the church would be doomed”.

    I have heard these sorts of comments before and that the biggest recruitment tool the muslims there have is to show people Hollywood movies and ask whether people wanted their children growing up like that, with all the focus on unbridled sex, mixed up lives and separated families.

    And homosexuality seems to be tacked on with that as well.

    Do we know if this is a cultural position in Nigeria about homosexuality ? Different cultures of the world seem to have different attitudes towards it.

    I find it’s not a big thing to the Catholic Christians in Asia and the Pacific.

  • eranu

    hang on to yer matches there dif drum. im saying the message should not be changed to fit in to how secular society thinks. as time goes on and society drifts further away from the right and wrong defined in the bible, then there will be more and more conflicts. if people reject what they hear then thats entirely their own decision. but the message should not be altered by man.

  • BfB

    These ridicules statements ‘what current society thinks’ is bull. What society? Let’s ask ’em! How about a referendum? We know how that works in the eyeww… Like I said before, meet your new friend Ben Dover. Clearly we know what current society thinks……the judges and liberal, socialist thought police don’t give a shite what the majority think. They know better. These bishops want to preserve what is their right to preserve, good luck to them.
    Here in the US anytime the electorate has voted on gay marriage the majority have voted against it.
    Any inroads for the gay mafia has been when the will of the people has been ignored and the liberal activist judges and legislatures have spit in the face of their electorate. California activist judges approved gay marriages in spite of the will of the people who voted for a ban. Massachusetts legislators denied their electorate the right to vote on gay marriage in the state because the will of the people was against their liberal, socialist agenda.
    they know better than you, eh?

    ‘Six months after gay and lesbian couples began legally marring in Massachusetts, opponents of same-sex marriage swept Election Day, with voters in 11 states approving constitutional amendments codifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.

    The amendments won in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and even Oregon the one state where gay rights activists had hoped to prevail.
    The amendments passed with a 3-to-1 margin in Kentucky, Georgia and Arkansas, 3-to-2 in Ohio and 6-to-1 in Mississippi. Bans passed by narrower margins in Oregon, about 57 percent, and Michigan, about 59 percent.
    Since Massachusetts began allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed last May, 13 states have approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. This number includes Missouri, which approved such a measure in August.’
    This is what American society thinks…plain and simple. Think the gay mafia influenced, activst, communist judges give a shit? Move to California.
    This is a matter of activist forwarding their agenda, against the will of the members of a community, Anglican, European, American, Californian, whatever. This usurpation of values, whether it be trashing religious mores, or sneaking your daughter to the abortionist without your knowledge will tilt back in favor of the good part of society, although Europe has a much steeper hill to climb and the bad guys have greased it.

  • joeCanuck

    BfB

    I guess you’re not at all impressed with the fact that your founding fathers decided to have a Bill of Rights to prevent a dictatorship of the majority over the rights of others. Nor it seems do you like the separation of state and church.
    To each his own.

  • Different Drummer

    “hang on to yer matches there dif drum. im saying the message should not be changed to fit in to how secular society thinks. as time goes on and society drifts further away from the right and wrong defined in the bible, then there will be more and more conflicts. if people reject what they hear then thats entirely their own decision. but the message should not be altered by man.”

    It was the Church that did the burning were they right or wrong?

    If they were wrong why were they wrong.

    Or do you think that this done by mans decisions that God would have done it differently?

    I supposed your next move will be the theocratic logic defence.

  • Different Drummer

    “The amendments won in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and even Oregon the one state where gay rights activists had hoped to prevail.
    The amendments passed with a 3-to-1 margin in Kentucky, Georgia and Arkansas, 3-to-2 in Ohio and 6-to-1 in Mississippi. Bans passed by narrower margins in Oregon, about 57 percent, and Michigan, about 59 percent.”

    Phew! bfbyou do take us seriously don’t you? And you seem to know more about gay marriage than the average homosexual person. Was all that your own research or did you find it all on one ‘special’ site. If you didn’t – there are campaign resources for people who think like yourself. If nothing it would improve your writing style.

    Anyway all churches are having similar conflicts and breakups about this and other social questions and that can only be good. Catholics should have something like the Lambeth Conference to debate important issues like poverty tax policy and the social responsibility of the church.

  • joeCanuck

    On a related subject, Iris Robinson has been excoriated in the lead editorial in New Scientist this week.
    In the same issue there is an article on brain scans of people which strongly suggests that homosexuality is, indeed, genetic and not a lifestyle choice.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    JoeCanuck: “I guess you’re not at all impressed with the fact that your founding fathers decided to have a Bill of Rights to prevent a dictatorship of the majority over the rights of others. Nor it seems do you like the separation of state and church. ”

    On the other side of the coin, it is a trifle undemocratic to turn to a court to legislate from the bench. Likewise, where the state constitution permits an amendment to the state constitution, why *shouldn’t* those who oppose the court’s decision continue their argument? It is simply another part of the political process.

    It would be far more corrosive to the politics of the state were the State of California to seek to ignore their own state Constitution and their duties under it.

  • joeCanuck

    Dread

    I don’t support courts legislating but when a Supreme Court rules that a law is unconstitutional, I don’t consider that to be legislating.
    I don’t really know the situation in California so I can’t argue the merits or otherwise of the change which now permits same sex marriages.

  • eranu

    diff, as i understand things its not following biblical teaching to burn people to death. so with my limited knowledge id say that people of the day where not following biblical teaching by burning people to death. you cant blame the bible for things people do if they arent following what is taught there.

    the point is that bible truth does not change and when man tries to change it then hes making up his own bible, its not Gods one anymore. its a take it or leave it thing. if you want to accept what the bible teaches then great. if you reject it then thats up to you. but be aware of the consequences 🙂 what the world thinks at any period in time doesnt matter.
    what we see when churches try to fit in with the ‘homosexuality is ok’ view is a minister trying to preach to a congregation while openly practicing sin. that implys that its not sin which is at odds with various bible versus. obviously total nonsense.

  • joeCanuck

    obviously total nonsense

    Can’t disagree with what appears to be a self-referential statement.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    joeCanuck: “I don’t support courts legislating but when a Supreme Court rules that a law is unconstitutional, I don’t consider that to be legislating. ”

    Which is why the anti-gay-marriage groups are pushing for a constitutional amendment and the pro-gay-marriage groups are nervous. It is the people’s right to amend their Constitution.

    When you seek to use the judiciary to over-ride the will of the people, you risk the wrath of the people.

    I would also point out that the Federal Bill of Rights, as envisioned, was simply a list of restrictions upon the Federal government. Several states, for example, *did* maintain state religions. I worry that, rather than being a co-equal brach of government, there is this slide to believe that the Supreme Court somehow trumps the other two branches, creating a de facto judicial oligarchy, rather than the representational republic envisioned in the US Constitution.

    There has been a corruptive over-reaching, largely an unintended consequence of the strengthening of the Federal gov’t during the War between the States and subsequent conflicts. Power acquired by the gov’t as a result of an emergency is seldom fully returned to the populace after the emergency has passed.

  • earnan

    I was at a Nationals (American baseball) game with a few people from my company. One of them had a prosthetic hand and also a prosthetic left foot that he got when serving in Iraq. When it came time for the national anthem, they had the “Washington D.C. Gay Men’s Choir” sing it. I personally didn’t know what to make of it, whether to be ashamed that this guy next to me who gave so much in service of his country had to listen to the national anthem sung by a bunch of queers. Overall, I just thought it was an odd choice to sing the national anthem

  • joeCanuck

    You don’t think that there are any homosexuals serving in the forces, I take it? Or that homosexuals cherish their nation?

  • joeCanuck

    DC

    I understand the states versus federation issue. That’s why I said “a” Supreme Court.

  • Different Drummer

    JoeCanuck

    I think you and DC know who the National States Rights Party are…

  • Different Drummer

    You know ERANU

    There is a difference between justification and biblical meaning.

    You say the biblical text did not sanaction death by bruning. Didn’t stop fundis doing it though did it?

    Hence bibilical ‘meaning’ is irrelevant to the punishments and sanctions that religion and fundimentalist want to impose.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    DD: “I think you and DC know who the National States Rights Party are… ”

    Depends on the issue and what plays at the moment, DD. Neither party is a monolith, but is a collection of disparate political interests that enjoy as much internal contradiction and jockeying for power as the two parties do with one another externally. F’rinstance, Gore v. Bush in the Supreme Court was a complete inversion of the two organizations “normal” positions on the issues in play — both sides will abandon anything in the pursuit of power. Both sides have played the cards when it has suited their purposes.

    joeCanuck: “I understand the states versus federation issue. That’s why I said ”a” Supreme Court.”

    There is a reason that what the court renders is called an “opinion,” joe. Likewise, there are checks on the Supreme Court — checks that the Supreme Court ignores at whim of late and without anything sterner than meek acceptance of their judicial over-step.

    That a Supreme Court declares something unconstitutional is not the end of the road for the issue. The process should not be aborgated because someone’s feelings might be hurt or that should the Court’s opinion not stand, that toys may be hurled from the pram.

  • joeCanuck

    DC

    You’re confusing me a bit. Is there any way to overturn the Court’s opinion other than by primary legislation?

  • Dread Cthulhu

    joeCanuck: “You’re confusing me a bit. Is there any way to overturn the Court’s opinion other than by primary legislation?”

    Depends on the facts and circumstances.

    1) You can always try and amend the Constitution

    2) The Congress and the President have the option (but this option needs to excercised at the time of passage) to pass a law that contains language limiting or forbidding the Supreme Court from reviewing it. (Remember, the Supreme Court is one of three co-equal branches of the government…)

    3) There is also historical precedent of telling the Supreme Court to go get stuffed — they have rendered their opinion, now let us see them enforce it. I believe it was Jackson who observed that the Constitution is not a suicide pact and took this approach.

  • joeCanuck

    Thanks for the info, DC.

    What was the outcome of the Jackson approach, do you know? Don’t bother researching it if you don’t know off the top of your head.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    joeCanuck: “What was the outcome of the Jackson approach, do you know? Don’t bother researching it if you don’t know off the top of your head. ”

    IIRC, the outcome was the “Trail of Tears” –the “Native Americans” won in court, but were still displaced westward. I don’t think Jackson suffered any material rebuke, other than some nattering from the black-robed set… quiet nattering at that.

  • Different Drummer

    “The process should not be aborgated because someone’s feelings might be hurt or that should the Court’s opinion not stand, that toys may be hurled from the pram.” DC

    Well DC as we both would agree it has gone well beyond that now. It was a major re-election issue for W. I doubt if that high water mark will be repeated as evangicals are taking up a more social agenda now.

    As I have been saying elsewhere the reasons why these changes are difficult to resist is that they have the force of modernity behind them something and that is a ‘process’ that no church can defeat.

  • Different Drummer

    “The process should not be aborgated because someone’s feelings might be hurt or that should the Court’s opinion not stand, that toys may be hurled from the pram.” DC

    Well DC as we both would agree it has gone well beyond that now. It was a major re-election issue for W. I doubt if that high water mark will be repeated as evangicals are taking up a more social agenda now.

    As I have been saying elsewhere the reasons why these changes are difficult to resist is that they have the force of modernity behind them and that is a ‘process’ that no church can defeat.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    DD: “Well DC as we both would agree it has gone well beyond that now. It was a major re-election issue for W. I doubt if that high water mark will be repeated as evangicals are taking up a more social agenda now.”

    Depends — the light shown on Wright and others of that ilk will have a corrosive effect on left of center evangelicals. Likewise, in California, given the margin that the ballot initiative passed on, short of some sort of state malfeasence, I have a hard time seeing a run not being made to amend the California constitution.

    DD: “As I have been saying elsewhere the reasons why these changes are difficult to resist is that they have the force of modernity behind them something and that is a ‘process’ that no church can defeat. ”

    No, but the use of the courts is a two-edged sword, especially when they are used to subvert ballot initiatives. The net effect is that more than the evangelicals get pissed off.

    You need to quit thinking like a poli sci major or moot court law student — it is not enough to stand in one place and wish hard enough. Court decisions, even Supreme Court precedents are fragile things. Society’s views are akin to an oil tanker — I don’t care how hard you spin the wheel, the vessel does not turn that rapidly. Push too hard, too fast and there will be some level of backlash. EU Constitution / Treaty is a neutral case in point — you start running roughshod over the common man and, eventually, they rise up on their hind legs and tell you where you can put you anti-democratic efforts.

  • Danny O’Connor

    I have to ask the question,what determines a person’s sexual orientation?
    If it is hereditary , It would suggest not-in that so far we are all products of a joining together of a man and a woman,that the act of conception was the result of a heterosexual act of union,I am not sure if sexuality is influenced by surroundings or something else.If we accept that people have no control over their sexual orientation, then anything must go ,whatever that entails.
    I want to be clear that I respect all people,and I believe that as a Christian I want to have my rights and beliefs respected as well.
    I believe that the proper place for sex is in the marriage bed , between husband and wife,anything else is wrong, whether it is between a man and a woman, 2 men , or 2 women.

  • kensei

    DC

    IIRC, the outcome was the “Trail of Tears” –the “Native Americans” won in court, but were still displaced westward. I don’t think Jackson suffered any material rebuke, other than some nattering from the black-robed set… quiet nattering at that.

    What a fabulous precedent to want to be following!!!!!

    You need to quit thinking like a poli sci major or moot court law student—it is not enough to stand in one place and wish hard enough. Court decisions, even Supreme Court precedents are fragile things. Society’s views are akin to an oil tanker—I don’t care how hard you spin the wheel, the vessel does not turn that rapidly.

    I can imagine you in 1955 stating similar things about Black Civil Rights. Personally, I can’t see how the President or Congress attempting to cut out the Supreme Court results in anything other than a constitutional crisis, and it a worrying attitude when people don’t get they want. If they can frame legislation in such a fashion it passes the court or can manage to get an amendment passed, fair enough. But those are both tricky things, and the most recent polling from California suggests the tide may have turned.

    In any case, the argument over “Gay Marriage” is a false one. No one can prevent gay people from marrying if there is a church that will do it: it’s between them and God. I as a Catholic would not believe it constitutes marriage, but then again I don’t believe in Allah or Vishnu or you’re saved by faith alone either. What you are really banning is the state conferring any status on the marriage. Congratulations, you’ve prevented someone who might have been married and lived with someone for 30 or 40 years being treated as next of kin. Way to go, Chief!

  • Different Drummer

    DC on the EU

    “EU Constitution / Treaty is a neutral case in point—you start running roughshod over the common man and, eventually, they rise up on their hind legs and tell you where you can put you anti-democratic efforts.”

    Well DC the it’s same argument isn’t that we have been having here on and off. Should the executive introduce reforms that are not supported by the public or should it leave the argument to the reformers and change the law anyway.

    Leo Abse was not gay he was a practicing jew who believed that sin is a matter of individual conscience not legal oppression.

    It was his bill that changed the law in 1967.

    Also there is a dynamic in modern life that fundimentalists will always oppose in any case.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    kensei: “What a fabulous precedent to want to be following!!!!! ”

    When and where did I mention a desire, Kensei? joeCanuck inquired what were the possible responses and I laid them out. Each has a legal and/or historical basis.

    I wish you’d quit trying to score cheap points by reading what you wish I’d written, rather than what I wrote.

    kensei: “I can imagine you in 1955 stating similar things about Black Civil Rights.”

    I could say that I can imagine you goose-stepping about in a black and silver uniform, marching “undesirables” off to “re-education camps.” That doesn’t make it accurate, now does it?

    You are dangerously close to my having to ask you whether or not your mother knows what you do on her computer when she’s not on the web-cam.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    DD: “Well DC the it’s same argument isn’t that we have been having here on and off. Should the executive introduce reforms that are not supported by the public or should it leave the argument to the reformers and change the law anyway. ”

    If the people do not support the law and the executive makes their “reforms,” (we may have to agree to disagree whether or not the changes they wish to make are actual reforms or merely a ham-handed attempt by the executive to accumulate more power over the people) it is an invitation to tyranny — the whole reason both efforts that were answerable to the people have failed is that they, the executive, want to accumulate more power without opening themselves up to more responsibility / answerability to the people.

  • kensei

    When and where did I mention a desire, Kensei? joeCanuck inquired what were the possible responses and I laid them out. Each has a legal and/or historical basis.

    You suggested that it was an option, perhaps inevitable if “activist judges” kept going and gave your precedent when pushed. Ignoring the Supreme Court really really isn’t an option in the modern US. The Constitutional crisis would be of a magnitude unknown and would certainly put pissing about over EU treaties to shade.

    I could say that I can imagine you goose-stepping about in a black and silver uniform, marching “undesirables” off to “re-education camps.” That doesn’t make it accurate, now does it?

    True but my point was really that people said all kinds of similar things about Black Civil rights. Which you of course new. In any case, in a sense the great gap with all the civil rights movements for me is that all prejudice is essentially the same. Racism is feminism is sectarianism is homophobia is calling people “white trailer trash”. When you depart from that and segement off you weaken your case and your understanding, not strengthen it. The segmentation is the big problem in the US for me: ffs Obama and Clinton were arguing over racism versus feminism.

    You are dangerously close to my having to ask you whether or not your mother knows what you do on her computer when she’s not on the web-cam.

    Yeah, good one. I’m cut in two. No wait, the other one :rolleyes:

  • Different Drummer

    If the executive carry out reforms despite the people DC writes:

    “it is an invitation to tyranny—the whole reason [such] efforts that were answerable to the people have failed is that they, the executive, want to accumulate more power without opening themselves up to more responsibility / answerability to the people.”

    I serious about states rights in the US. It has long been the casue of the extreme right to oppose what the liberal costal states do or want. It lead to one civil war and another that continues up to this day. Don’t think that’s going to change much in the ‘dry’ states. I think you would get very bored there – no wonder you are on here if you are!!! 😉

    My point about Leo Abse was his bill passed. As to the other ‘undemocratic’ forms of government..

    The best supporters Ulsters gay law reform movement were the House of Lords – an unelected body. Would that be cause enough for anti gay campaginers of the DUP to call for its abolition? or would they rather accept a undemocratic peerage and argue against such undemocatric impositions….

    In any case as you would agree the gay issue although ‘significant’ is not that important so it would hardly lead to tyranny.

    Likening the gay reformers to Hitler, Stalin or Robert Magabe is a bit much.

    I wonder what Leo Abse would think if somone like you told him at the time that getting gay law reform against the public made him one of Hitlers children.