Scotland Rejects Independence From Britain

In a historic vote that had many wringing their hands in fear, Scotland has voted against independence from Great Britain.  Now, with the "No" vote having prevailed, many expect Britain to make moves that will lead to more Scottish autonomy within the larger nation - a more federalized system, if you will.  Like the perennial separatists in Quebec, I am sure that those on the losing side will continue to roil the political waters.  Here are highlights from the New York Times:

Voters in Scotland decisively rejected independence from the United Kingdom in a referendum that had threatened to break up the 307-year union, but also appeared to open the way for a looser, more federal Britain.

With results tallied from all 32 voting districts, the “no” campaign won 55.3 percent of the vote while the pro-independence side won 44.7 percent. The margin was greater than forecast by virtually all pre-election polls.

The outcome was a deep disappointment for the vocal, enthusiastic pro-independence movement led by the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond, who had seen an opportunity to make a centuries-old nationalist dream a reality and forced the three main British parties into panicked promises that they would grant substantial new power to the Scottish Parliament.

The decision spared Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain a shattering defeat that would have raised questions about his ability to continue in office and would have diminished his nation’s standing in the world.

Mr. Salmond, while conceding defeat, insisted that the 1.6 million people who voted for independence showed the depth of yearning for the promises made by British political leaders to stave off disunion.

“Scotland will expect these to be honored in rapid course,” Mr. Salmond said, while promising to work to heal the divisions the referendum created.

The vote preserved a union molded in 1707, but it left Mr. Cameron facing an angry backlash among some lawmakers in his Conservative Party, angered by the promises of greater Scottish autonomy that he and other party leaders made just days before the vote, when it appeared that the independence campaign might win. Some lawmakers called for similar autonomy for England itself, and even the creation of a separate English parliament.

The outcome headed off the huge economic, political and military imponderables that would have flowed from a vote for independence. But it also presaged a looser, more federal United Kingdom. And it was unlikely to deter Scottish nationalists from trying again, in the future, to attain independence.

President Obama had made little secret of his desire that the United Kingdom remain intact. Indeed, Britain has long prided itself on a so-called special relationship with the United States, and Britain’s allies had been concerned, among other things, about Mr. Salmond’s vow to evict British nuclear submarine bases from Scotland, threatening London’s role in Western defenses.

Quote of the Day: British Prime Minister David Cameron on the Commencement of Same Sex Marriages

Prime Minister David Cameron

Tonight same sex marriage became legal in England and Wales and couples flocked to tie the knot.  Not surprisingly Catholic prelates and far right elements in the Church of England are whining and carrying on as if the world is ending.  Perhaps it is - or at least their world of hate and discrimination that for far too long they were able to inflict on others.  Prime Minister David Cameron had forward looking words for the arrival of equality and a legal structure where individuals will no longer be inferior because of their sexuality.  Cameron's words are the antithesis of what the Christofascists preach, although I would argue that they are very much in keeping with the teachings of Christ.  Teachings more or less totally ignored by today's "godly folk" who reject the Gospel message in favor of the worst aspects of the Old Testament.  Pink News has details on Cameron's remarks. Here are highlights

Writing exclusively for PinkNews, Prime Minister David Cameron celebrates the introduction of same-sex marriage today, comparing same-sex marriages to his own, and noting the work still to be done for equality.

This weekend is an important moment for our country. For the first time, the couples getting married won’t just include men and women – but men and men; and women and women. After all the campaigning – not least by readers of PinkNews – we will at last have equal marriage in our country. Put simply, in Britain it will no longer matter whether you are straight or gay – the State will recognise your relationship as equal.

This is something that has been very important to me. I have been so lucky to find the most incredible lifelong partner in Sam and our marriage has been a very special part of the commitment we have made to each other. Of course any marriage takes work, requires patience and understanding, give and take – but what it gives back in terms of love, support, stability and happiness is immeasurable. That is not something that the State should ever deny someone on the basis of their sexuality. When people’s love is divided by law, it is the law that needs to change.

The introduction of same-sex civil marriage says something about the sort of country we are. It says we are a country that will continue to honour its proud traditions of respect, tolerance and equal worth. It also sends a powerful message to young people growing up who are uncertain about their sexuality. It clearly says ‘you are equal’ whether straight or gay. That is so important in trying to create an environment where people are no longer bullied because of their sexuality – and where they can realise their potential, whether as a great mathematician like Alan Turing, a star of stage and screen like Sir Ian McKellen or a wonderful journalist and presenter like Clare Balding.

[W]e should be proud to live in a country judged to be the best place to live in Europe if you are lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans. But we should equally be far from complacent about the challenges that remain – and I am just as committed as ever to working with you to challenge attitudes and stamp-out homophobic bullying and hate crimes.

We are a nation that is growing stronger economically because of our long term economic plan. But I hope we can also be a country that is growing stronger socially because we value love and commitment equally. Let us raise a toast to that – and all those getting married this weekend.

 It is worth remembering that David Cameron is the leader of the Tory Party - the UK's conservative party and that it was the Tories who pushed through marriage equality.  Given that marriage and supporting stable relationships are indeed a conservative value, it was appropriate that Cameron and the Tories championed same sex marriage - as any true conservatives should.  The reality is that here in America the Republican Party is no longer a conservative party.  Instead it is a sectarian party push to impose Christofascist beliefs on all citizens. 

Syria - Another Fool's Errand?

While events in Syria where civilians and children are being killed by Assad's murderous regime are 

horrifying, a U.S. intervention may not solve the problem.  Indeed, it could make matters worse and harm far more innocents.  One need only look at the debacle in Iraq to recall that American intervention cost far, far more Iraqi lives than Saddam Husein at his most murderous.  Compounding Barack Obama's position is that (i) the UN has not approved intervention, (ii) now the UK is having second thoughts on foreign military involvement, and (iii) the American public is not supportive of the move, most likely because they still have the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan fresh in their minds.  A piece in Politico looks at the situation and some of the pros and cons of American military intervention.  Here are excerpts:

President Barack Obama had hoped for a quick, convincing strike on Syria, but growing opposition and Great Britain’s stunning rejection of the attack has thrust him into the uncomfortable position of go-it-alone hawk.

Just how Obama, whose career sprung from the ashes of George W. Bush’s Iraq policy, got to this extraordinary moment in his presidency is a tale of good intentions, seat-of-the-pants planning and, above all, how a cautious commander-in-chief became imprisoned by a promise.


Obama seems likely to bull ahead with air attacks despite an impact and popularity that will be, at best, limited — an unsavory outcome marginally better than packing up his Tomahawks and going home, which would deal a humbling blow to U.S. prestige and embolden the Assad regime.  It’s a dilemma first-term Obama — who warned author Bob Woodward in 2010 that “once the dogs of war are unleashed, you don’t know where [they are] going to lead” — was careful to avoid.

Obama, tethered to his August 2012 “red line” pronouncement on Assad’s use of chemical weapons and eager to shed his lead-from-behind image, now runs “the risk of looking weak any way this turns out,” in the words of one former adviser who cited the limited impact of any missiles-only strike. 

“Obama’s caution has served him well in the past, but he’s completely abandoned it, and he’s paying for it now,” said Daniel Kurtzer, who served as Bill Clinton’s ambassador to Egypt and George W. Bush’s ambassador to Israel.

“On two occasions, the rhetoric has gotten ahead of the policy-making process. Once when the president talked about chemical weapons being a game changer and a red line,” Kurtzer said. “Then [this week] when Obama and [Secretary of State John] Kerry made remarks that point clearly in the direction of some kind of military action — even though he hasn’t decided what he’s going to do and he hasn’t found a coalition.”

Ari Fleischer, Bush’s press secretary at the start of the Iraq War, couldn’t help but gloat late Thursday when the British House of Commons rejected Prime Minister David Cameron’s call for airstrikes. “Bush’s attack on Iraq was multilateral. O[bama], who attacked Bush for being a unilateralist, will make a unilateral attack on Syria,” he tweeted.

Opponents of a strike, who warn of unintended consequences that could precipitate a regional conflict, have cheered the delay. Nonetheless, it could force Obama to up the intensity of his attack, according to experts.

 

“The ghosts of Iraq haunt this administration very much in their decision making. It’s why they’re reluctant to become too deeply involved in an expansive mission in Syria,” Kahl said. “They’ve been reluctant to use military force overtly in Syria, but it’s not because they don’t have a [military] plan.”

 

[C]ongressional leaders in both parties described Obama’s strategy to explain the rationale for the strike as inadequate and improvisational. . . . . Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — an Obama ally and former Democratic National Committee chairman — told CNN Thursday that the administration needed the “full weight “of congressional leadership before signing off on an attack, joining about 150 members of both chambers to raise questions about an attack.

The House of Commons vote had a sins-of-the-father quality, hobbling a pair of leaders all too aware of the legacies of their predecessors George W. Bush and Tony Blair, who spearheaded the deeply unpopular Iraq invasion.

“Isn’t the real reason we’re here today, is not because of the horror of these weapons and the horror exists – but because the American president foolishly drew a red line and because of his position now, he’s going to attack or face humiliation?” asked Labour MP Paul Flynn during a raucous Thursday debate closely monitored by the White House.

It's a huge mess that may put American lives again at stake.

The Guardian: UK Government Tried Intimidation

In a precursor of what we may yet see in America, the editor of the UK newspaper The Guardian - which frequently has better coverage on issues in the USA and crimes by U.S. military personnel than one finds in the America press - has described intimidation efforts by the British government to secure the information leaked to that paper by Edward Snowden.   What makes the story so strange is the leaked information was AMERICAN information, not that of the UK.  One cannot help but wonder whether the Brits were acting in concert with the Obama administration.  It's all very troubling.  Here are highlights from Politico:

The British government intimidated The Guardian newspaper and destroyed material Edward Snowden provided on surveillance programs, editor Alan Rusbridger said Monday.

Writing in a column on The Guardian’s website, Rusbridger said that in June he was contacted by “a very senior” U.K. government official demanding the return or destruction of the material from Snowden. A month ago the tone toughened, Rusbridger wrote, when a government official told Rusbridger “You’ve had your fun. Now we want the stuff back.”

“There followed further meetings with shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: hand the Snowden material back or destroy it,” Rusbridger said. “I explained that we could not research and report on this subject if we complied with this request. The man from Whitehall looked mystified. ‘You’ve had your debate. There’s no need to write any more.’

Rusbridger said he was told if he did not destroy the material, the U.K. would move to close down The Guardian’s reporting through the courts. Despite telling government officials most of their reporting on Snowden was being done outside of the U.K., Rusbridger said British officials carried on with attempting to stop the reporting.

Rusbridger said The Guardian will continue reporting on the Snowden documents, just not in London.

Rusbridger wrote the column after David Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who broke the Snowden story, was detained for nine hours in London’s Heathrow Airport under Schedule 7 of Britain’s terror laws. Rusbridger said the detention of Miranda and the seizure of his electronic materials was just the next event in a long line of intimidation by the U.K. government.

“The detention of Miranda has rightly caused international dismay because it feeds into a perception that the US and UK governments — while claiming to welcome the debate around state surveillance started by Snowden — are also intent on stemming the tide of leaks and on pursuing the whistleblower with a vengeance,” Rusbridger said.

A free press is what protects us from government tyranny and also keeps the government honest - if there is such a thing - and exposes war crimes such as those exposed by Bradley Manning' release of information.   One of the first things dictatorships do is silence the free press (Hitler and the Nazi regime did so as have the ayatollahs in Tehran).  What is happening in the UK and America is disturbing.

Quote of the Day: The Abuse of Domestic Spying

I continue to find the level of domestic spying on citizens in America frightening - not to mention a violation of the U.S. Constitution's provisions against unlawful search and seizure.  Yet Barack Obama and others have continued to defend the unconstitutional practice using the excuse that it is necessary to fight terrorism and national security.  The Nazi regime used the national security ruse in the 1930's and we all know what that lead to down the road.  The potential for abuse is simply too great and there are in truth no effective controls in place to prevent abuse should someone in the government decide to do so.  In a post Andrew Sullivan sums things up well after at first defending the practice.  The final straw for him was the holding and interrogation of reporter Glenn Greenwald's husband: 

When the NSA leaks burst onto the scene, I was skeptical of many of the large claims made by civil libertarians and queasily sympathetic to a program that relied on meta-data alone, as long as it was transparent, had Congressional buy-in, did not accidentally expose innocent civilians to grotesque privacy loss, and was watched by a strong FISA court.

Since then, I’ve watched the debate closely and almost all the checks I supported have been proven illusory. The spying is vastly more extensive than anyone fully comprehended before; the FISA court has been revealed as toothless and crippled; and many civilians have had their privacy accidentally violated over 3000 times. The president, in defending the indefensible, has damaged himself and his core reputation for honesty and candor. These cumulative revelations have exposed this program as, at a minimum, dangerous to core liberties and vulnerable to rank abuse. I’ve found myself moving further and further to Glenn’s position.

What has kept me from embracing it entirely has been the absence of any real proof than any deliberate abuse has taken place and arguments that it has helped prevent terror attacks. This may be too forgiving a standard. If a system is ripe for abuse, history tells us the only question is not if such abuse will occur, but when. So it is a strange and awful irony that the Coalition government in Britain has today clinched the case for Glenn.

A disclosure upfront: I have met David Miranda as part of a my friendship with Glenn Greenwald. The thought of his being detained by the British police for nine hours because his partner embarrassed the American government really sickens me at a gut level. 

My obvious question is: what could possibly lead the British security services to suspect David of such ties to terror groups? 

[A]lthough David was released, his entire digital library was confiscated – including his laptop and phone. So any journalist passing through London’s Heathrow has now been warned: do not take any documents with you. Britain is now a police state when it comes to journalists, just like Russia is.

In this respect, I can say this to David Cameron. Thank you for clearing the air on these matters of surveillance. You have now demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that these anti-terror provisions are capable of rank abuse. Unless some other facts emerge, there is really no difference in kind between you and Vladimir Putin. You have used police powers granted for anti-terrorism and deployed them to target and intimidate journalists deemed enemies of the state.

You have proven that these laws can be hideously abused. Which means they must be repealed.

British Parliament Poised to Vote Today on Marriage Equality

As the DOMA and Proposition 8 cases await oral argument next month before the U. S. Supreme Court, America's longest standing ally prepares to vote on marriage equality at 7:00 PM this evening London time.  Meanwhile, over the weekend, France, the American ally that helped win the America war for independence likewise took a huge step towards marriage equality.  One can only wonder whether America will join the movement toward modernity or whether it instead will show it's promise of liberty and religious freedom is all form and no substance.  In the United Kingdom, the conservative government - that's right, its the conservative Tory government leading the marriage equality charge - is pulling out the stops to garner votes for marriage equality.  Here are highlights from a piece in the Daily Telegraph authored by George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary William Hague and Home Secretary Theresa May (pictured above):

SIR – Today the Commons will vote on the Bill to allow same-sex marriage.

Civil partnerships for gay couples were a great step forward, but the question now is whether it is any longer acceptable to exclude people from marriage simply because they love someone of the same sex.

Marriage has evolved over time. We believe that opening it up to same-sex couples will strengthen, not weaken, the institution. As David Cameron has said, we should support gay marriage not in spite of being Conservatives, but because we are Conservatives. 

Our party also has a strong belief in religious freedom, a vital element of a free society. The Bill ensures that no faith group will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages. The legal advice is clear that these protections for religious groups cannot be overturned by the courts.

Religious freedom works both ways. Why should faith groups, such as the Quakers, that wish to conduct gay marriages be forbidden from doing so? This Bill will enhance religious freedom, not restrict it.

Attitudes towards gay people have changed. A substantial majority of the public now favour allowing same-sex couples to marry, and support has increased rapidly. This is the right thing to do at the right time. We will be among the Conservative MPs voting for this Bill today. 

William Hague MP (Con)
George Osborne MP (Con)
Theresa May MP (Con)

Needless to say, the Britsh equivalents of American Christofascists and the child rapist protectors of the Roman Catholic Church are howling.  They have no regard for real religious freedom for all.  They merely seek to force their beliefs on all Britons.  As a piece in The Guardian notes, supporters of marriage equality are also citing Margaret Thatcher as a model for conservative MP's:

The chancellor, foreign secretary and home secretary made their case as other Tory supporters of equal marriage made an eleventh-hour plea to fellow Conservative MPs to vote in favour of reform by invoking the record of Margaret Thatcher, who supported the legalisation of homosexuality in the 1960s.

Amid fears in No 10 that David Cameron may struggle to win the support of a majority of his MPs in a free vote in the Commons on Tuesday, reformers are pointing out that Thatcher set herself apart from Tory traditionalists who described the bill legalising homosexuality as a "dirty measure".

The surprise intervention of the cabinet's heaviest hitters suggested the bill was in line with Conservative values and strengthened both marriage and religious freedom.

Anti-Gay "Conservatives" Want Marriage Vote Delay in UK

With France well on its way to adopting full same sex marriage, the reactionary Christofascist elements in the Tory Party in the United Kingdom are pitching a fit over Prime Minister David Cameron's planned vote on marriage equality this week in Parliament.  Cameron seems undeterred by the 25 or so knuckle draggers who are demanding the delay and the UK's Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, has authored an op-ed that argues that gay marriage strengthens the institution contrary to the wailing and whining of the religious bigots opposing the legislation.  Given the fine mess that straights have made of the institution of marriage, the argument that civil marriage for same sex couples somehow undermines the institution are ludicrous.  Stripped of all the manufactured smoke screens, opposition to marriage equality boils down to one thing: anti-gay animus and a long standing desire to keep gays stigmatized and second class citizens under the civil law.  First some highlights from Reuters on the efforts of the Christofascists to delay the marriage vote:

Cameron has pledged his personal support for a gay marriage bill but many in his party and among his legislators oppose it on moral grounds and say the government has no mandate to push it through parliament.

As the bill is supported by Britain's two other main parties, opposition Labor and Conservative coalition partners the Liberal Democrats, it is in no danger of being defeated.

But a letter signed by 25 past and present chairmen of local Conservative associations was handed in to Cameron's Downing Street residence on Sunday afternoon by six of the signatories.

"We feel very strongly that the decision to bring this bill before parliament has been made without adequate debate or consultation with either the membership of the Conservative Party or with the country at large," the letter said.  It added: "Resignations from the party are beginning to multiply and we fear that, if enacted, this bill will lead to significant damage to the Conservative Party in the run-up to the 2015 election."

The issue has sparked heated debate in Britain, particularly among faith groups, but 55 percent of British people support same-sex marriage, according to a YouGov poll in December.

 Meanwhile, the Daily Mail carried the pro-marriage op-ed.  Here are column excerpts:

It’s wrong to say to gay men and women that their love is less legitimate. It’s wrong to say that because of how you love and who you love, you are not entitled to the same rights as others. It’s wrong because inequality is wrong. Some people might think it curious that a Tory politician should be making these arguments. But I want to change the law on marriage because of my Conservative convictions.

I believe that marriage should be defended, supported and promoted in every way. A society which believes in commitment and which seeks to encourage us to think beyond the short term, which encourages people to put the enduring above the convenient, and which asks people to put stability in personal relationships ahead of self-interest, is a healthier society.

As Education Secretary I am responsible for child protection policy and every day I see the consequences of family breakdown. When parents run away from their responsibilities, children suffer. That is why I am so determined to change things so that more children are rescued from abusive homes and adopted by loving families. In all of this work I am constantly reminded of how important it is to support those who make a public commitment to each other – and the best way of doing that is through supporting marriage. Marriage is not undermined by extending it to gay people – it is reinforced by including everyone equally.

The real threat to marriage comes from social forces that encourage selfishness and short-termism. More people making a lifelong commitment to each other helps us turn that tide.

There’s another reason why I support change. I’m a Conservative because I believe in making opportunity more equal. The Conservatives had the first Jewish and female leaders, Conservatives led the fight to abolish slavery, and massively extended property ownership and access to higher education.

Parliament has an opportunity next week to strengthen the institution of marriage, uphold the principle of equality before the law, affirm our belief in commitment, demonstrate that we value all citizens equally and declare our belief in the transformative power of human love. I hope we can vote for those values in decisive terms.

The other irony not addressed is that reality that in America, organizations like Family Research Council and NOM whine incessantly about "children needing a mother and father" yet they don't spend a dime on expanding adoption services to reduce the number of children languishing in foster care some of whom will never know a permanent home.  Instead they pay themselves obscene salaries - e.g., Brian Brown at NOM reportedly pocketed $500,000 in 2012 - focus their efforts on disseminating anti-gay animus and creating racial division.  I suspect if Christ were living today, he would be calling out the Christofascists for the modern day Pharisees that they are and joining the pro-gay marriage effort.

62% In UK Support Gay Marriage

Despite the efforts of Neanderthals in the Anglican Church and the child rapist protectors in the Roman Catholic Church to derail the Tory push for passage of gay marriage legislation in the United Kingdom, the Tories seem to have popular support and two recent polls showed that 62% of the populace support same sex marriage - which is exactly what should be the case in any country that claims to support freedom of religion.  For too long in the western world the fear and hate based beliefs of conservative Christians has been forced down the throats of all citizens.  Would that more in America could see this reality.  Here are highlights from The Guardian:

More than three in five voters support David Cameron's wish to introduce gay marriage, according to a poll conducted for the Guardian. The strong backing for a change in the law comes after the archbishop of Westminster queried the democratic legitimacy of the coalition plans.

Vincent Nichols, head of the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales, used a strident Christmas Day message to blast the "shambolic" process that could soon put provision for same-sex weddings on the statute book. "There was no announcement in any party manifesto; there's been no green paper; there's been no statement in the Queen's speech. And yet here we are on the verge of primary legislation," Nichols told the BBC.

The plans also came under fire from a high court judge, who said the government should instead be looking at the "crisis of family breakdown". Sir Paul Coleridge said too much time and energy had been put into the debate on gay marriage for "0.1% of the population".

The ICM poll conducted just before Christmas found 62% of voters now support the proposals, with half this number – 31% – opposed.  .  .  .  .  That significant hardening of opinion during the year will encourage Cameron, whose embrace of gay marriage has proved controversial, not only with religious leaders but also with the Tory backbench. And the new poll reveals a particularly significant swing towards the reform among the Tory base.

Both men and women support gay marriage, although the majority is bigger among female voters, 65% of whom support gay marriage, compared with 58% of men. Gay marriage is backed by 60%+ majorities across every nation and region, the 74% majority recorded in Wales being the most emphatic. There is a pro-gay-marriage majority, too, in every social class – although the majority is somewhat smaller in the DE class, which contains the lowest occupational grades. 

I sincerely hope that religious freedom and equality prevail and that the arguments of the opponents - all of which are based on religion - are rejected and thrown on the trash heap of history.

Prime Minister David Cameron Backs Gay Weddings in Church

While many Republicans like to call themselves conservatives, increasingly they are better described as reactionary Neanderthals who are fighting a battle against both modernity and losing the white male privilege that has long been so important to their psychological sense of self-worth.  It's both sick and sad, but many of the angry white men in the GOP and particularly in Christofascist circles only feel self-satisfaction when looking down on others they deemed to be inferior and/or sinners.  Thus, if one wants to see true conservatives nowadays one needs to look across the Atlantic to the united Kingdom where conservatism doesn't immediately equate with backwardness and bigotry.  The London Evening Standard looks at the pro-gay marriage agenda of Tory leader David Cameron who is not only pushing for full same sex marriage but also church marriage for denominations that wish to perform such weddings.  Here are some article highlights:

David Cameron will risk a major battle with his party next week by backing gay weddings in churches, the Evening Standard can reveal.

He will go further than ever in his modernising drive by saying religious groups should be allowed to host same-sex civil weddings in churches, synagogues and other religious buildings if they choose.  Organisations that reject gay marriage, such as the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, will have legal protection from being forced to host ceremonies against their wishes, the Prime Minister will pledge.

Tory MPs will have a free vote on a Bill next year, while Labour MPs will be whipped in favour.   It means all three party leaders now support a historic equality reform that would once have seemed incredible — that homosexual partners can have the same civil marriage rights as heterosexual couples and even get married in a religious setting. But some Conservatives said there would be “outrage” and warned that the Tories would haemorrhage members.

Mr Cameron’s view is that there is no reason to bar other churches from voluntarily hosting same-sex weddings, providing the “locks” ensure no church will be forced to take part.

Quakers and some Liberal Jews have loudly called for the right to marry gay worshippers, saying it is unfair to exclude some members of the congregation from the joys of marriage.

The consultation is thought to have revealed a blanket ban on church weddings would be open to legal challenge. This means churches such as the C of E are better protected if religious organisations that want to conduct same-sex marriage are permitted to do so.

Mr Cameron is prepared for a row with his MPs, say sources, because he believes the public are relaxed about the idea. Several polls have shown clear backing for gay weddings among voters, with only older people and regular church-goers strongly opposed.

In America, the views - and bigotry - of far right religious extremists continue to trump the beliefs and rights of other citizens and, in so doing make a mockery of the Constitutions guarantee of religious freedom for all citizens, not just Christofascists.

UK To Fast Track Gay Marriage

While knuckle dragging Neanderthal in the Republican Party continue to oppose same sex civil marriage as part of their campaign of self-prostitution to the Christianists, true conservative in the United Kingdom are moving to bring an expedited vote on a same sex marriage bill.  Not surprisingly, the religious extremists and zealots who seek to impose their religious beliefs on all Britons are not at all happy.  The reality is than CIVIL law same sex marriage will increase societal stability, not decrease it as the religious zealots claim.  The Telegraph looks at this development.  Here are some story excerpts:

The proposed change in the law is now expected to be voted on in Parliament in the New Year after the Prime Minister decided to rush it through. 

Downing Street said originally that same sex civil marriage would be introduced at some stage before the next General Election and there was no mention of the proposed legislation in the last Queen’s Speech.But a senior source told the Daily Mail: “The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have agreed to get on with it.

“It was in danger of slipping beyond the General Election.   “David Cameron’s view of this is ‘get it done and get it done quickly’.   Mr Cameron has promised to legislate to allow gay couples to marry in civil ceremonies, while not forcing the changes on the Church. 

A survey this week found that two thirds of voters believe the chief aim of the plan is to rebrand the Tory Party as “trendy and modern”. 

The Church of England and Roman Catholic bishops oppose the idea, while a number of Conservative MPs are also against it.  The move to hurry along the legislation is likely to worry the opponents of the plan, which is expected to be passed into law with the support of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. 

Justin Welby, the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, has hinted at a softening of the Church’s stance on gay partnerships but says he supports the Church of England’s opposition to same-sex marriage. 

As noted, the Christofascists are NOT happy and have gone into overdrive to conflate civil marriage with church marriage and to claim that churches will be forced to perform same sex marriages even though the proposed law contains an express exemption for churches.  As is always the case with the "godly Christian" crowd deliberately lying seems to be their standard course of behavior.  As I've said before, the claim to honor the Ten Commandments but ignore them at will.