3 ms·

I think you want to have a silly argument about the US vs the UK (or actually the US vs Europe, which is even less relevant to my original comment). I did not m

by foldr 6y ago

I think you want to have a silly argument about the US vs the UK (or actually the US vs Europe, which is even less relevant to my original comment). I did not make any claims about which is "better", so there's really nothing to talk about here. That is, unless you wish to continue going on long rants, telling your life story, using the mass murder of gay people as an example of progress, and making wholly inaccurate claims about the history of gay rights in the US. State-level civil partnerships are, as you know, of marginal value when not recognized by the federal government, which all Americans have to deal with. And it's inarguable that in the years following the introducing of civil partnerships in the UK, gay people in Britain were able to have their relationships recognized legally more effectively than gay people in the US (particularly with regard to e.g. spousal visas). >England is about the same size as Alabama. And perhaps more provincial. Alabama has a population of 5 million. The UK has a population of 67 million. England has a population of 56 million. London by itself has a higher population than Alabama and is vastly more diverse and outward-looking. From the examples you use in your comment, I can only assume that you just don't know much about the UK. E.g., there are also plenty of memorials to various LGBT causes in the UK. There is nothing particularly remarkable about this. > [The Church of England's] positions are those of the head-of-state. America doesn't have an established church, so it's hard to make a sensible comparison. The current American head of state doesn't support gay marriage either, by the way :) It's not really true that the Church's position is the Queen's position. The Queen, though head of the Church, also signed into law the legislation that legalized gay marriage. The girl wears a lot of hats. >the Queen could change CoE policy Actually she couldn't. This would be a violation of long-standing constitutional norms.

brudgers 6y ago
England doesn’t have a constitution. English “norms” are what forced Meghan from royal duties. I mean it’s hard to come up with anything more inherently racist than hereditary monarchy. But one which maintains an armed overseas enclave to enforce anti-Roman Catholic policy is unfortunately a good start. Saying “it’s our tradition” doesn’t make the monarch’s inaction any less a condoning of hate and discrimination. Tradition, however, is how they justify hate and discrimination in Alabama.
- foldr 6y ago
  >England doesn’t have a constitution. Yes it does. It doesn't have a written constitution. (Or at least, the main elements of the constitution are not codified in a single privileged written document. There are documents such as magna carta that form an important part of legal tradition that feeds into British constitutional law.). The constitution of the UK defines quite clearly the role of the monarch, which is not anywhere near as wide-ranging as you imagine. If you don't even know this basic fact about the UK, you really have no business commenting on the UK vs the US. With regard to Northern Ireland, Meghan, etc., you are framing your comments in a way that makes a sensible discussion impossible, so I won't take the bait.

by foldr 6y ago

brudgers 6y ago

England doesn’t have a constitution. English “norms” are what forced Meghan from royal duties. I mean it’s hard to come up with anything more inherently racist than hereditary monarchy. But one which maintains an armed overseas enclave to enforce anti-Roman Catholic policy is unfortunately a good start. Saying “it’s our tradition” doesn’t make the monarch’s inaction any less a condoning of hate and discrimination. Tradition, however, is how they justify hate and discrimination in Alabama.

foldr 6y ago
>England doesn’t have a constitution. Yes it does. It doesn't have a written constitution. (Or at least, the main elements of the constitution are not codified in a single privileged written document. There are documents such as magna carta that form an important part of legal tradition that feeds into British constitutional law.). The constitution of the UK defines quite clearly the role of the monarch, which is not anywhere near as wide-ranging as you imagine. If you don't even know this basic fact about the UK, you really have no business commenting on the UK vs the US. With regard to Northern Ireland, Meghan, etc., you are framing your comments in a way that makes a sensible discussion impossible, so I won't take the bait.