Another Country for Mike to Flame instead of the USA...

[MKSheppard]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html

Adoption for gay couples rejected by peers
By George Jones, Political Editor
(Filed: 17/10/2002)

Conservative peers and bishops joined forces in the
Lords last night to block Government plans to allow unmarried, homosexual and lesbian couples to adopt children.

A Tory move to maintain the current legal position that only married couples and single people were permitted to adopt was approved by 196 votes to 162, a majority of 34

The defeat was a setback for ministers who wanted the change in the law on the statute book before this session of Parliament ends on Nov 7.

Downing Street indicated that the Government would seek to overturn the vote when the Adoption and Children Bill returns to the Commons.

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said that opening adoption to unmarried and same-sex couples would increase the pool of families who could adopt.

But if the Lords stand firm, the Government would face an end-of-term "ping pong" battle between the two Houses.

This was the third time since Labour came to power in 1997 that family values campaigners in the Lords had rejected moves to extend homosexual rights.

Peers defeated attempts to scrap Section 28, which bans schools from promoting gay lifestyles.

They also threw out legislation to lower the age of homosexual consent to 16, but the change in the law was forced through by the Government using the Parliament Act.

Last night's vote was a victory for Tory and cross- bench peers who accused the Government of undermining marriage by seeking to put co-habiting and homosexual couples on the same level as married ones.

Twenty-three Labour MPs and 48 crossbenchers voted against the Government.

There is no bar on homosexual, lesbian or people living together adopting a child. But only one person in such a relationship can adopt. They cannot do so as a couple.

The Bill, as originally drafted, did not widen adoption to same sex and unmarried couples. But the Government supported an amendment from a back- bench Labour MP to allow adoption panels to choose married or unmarried couples as suitable parents.

Tony Blair was among Labour MPs who backed the change. Ministers said it would increase the number of children who could be adopted by "loving and stable families".

Earl Howe, the Tory health spokesman, told peers that maintaining the current position would safeguard the welfare of vulnerable children.

"Statistics show clearly that couples who commit themselves to marriage stand the best chance of having a stable and enduring relationship.

"Unmarried couples and same-sex couples are very much more likely to split up than couples who are married. It would be irresponsible of Parliament to subject children to the risk of further disruption in their lives."

If the Bill went through as the Government wanted, the law, for purposes of adoption, would make marriage, co-habitation and gay partnerships legally equivalent.

The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Rev Michael Scott- Joynt, said that to leave the Bill as it stood would be to undermine marriage.

"It would be like "destroying a precious eco-system on which the security, maturity, well-being and wholesomeness not only of countless individuals but of our society, now and in the future, depends."

Lord Jenkin of Roding, a former Tory cabinet minister, said children adopted by same-sex couples would be regarded as "freaks" by other schoolchildren if they had two fathers or two mothers.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, a junior health minister, denied that the Government was being "politically correct".

The issue was whether a child would be brought up in a loving, stable, family environment. "In that context can we really say that in every single case a married couple should take precedence?"

The Liberal Democrats accused the Tories of putting "personal prejudices" before the best interest of children.

[Darth Wong]

Of course they're socially regressive. They still have a fucking monarchy, for chrissakes!

* dons flame-retardant suit *

[MKSheppard]

Of course they're socially regressive. They still have a fucking monarchy, for chrissakes!

* dons flame-retardant suit *

So does Canada.

*Dons flame retardant suit and sprays Mike with a flamethrower*

[Darth Wong]

Of course they're socially regressive. They still have a fucking monarchy, for chrissakes!
* dons flame-retardant suit *

So does Canada.

We actually have our own constitution now, so we've pretty much gotten over that. We're just nice to them when they visit now.

*Dons flame retardant suit and sprays Mike with a flamethrower*

*Hurls thermite grenade in the hopes that it will eat through Shep's suit*

[Ted]

Of course they're socially regressive. They still have a fucking monarchy, for chrissakes!

* dons flame-retardant suit *

So does Canada.

*Dons flame retardant suit and sprays Mike with a flamethrower*

So does America, called the Oil Barons.

* dons flame-retardant suit *

[MKSheppard]

We actually have our own constitution now, so we've pretty much gotten over that. We're just nice to them when they visit now.

Then why is the Queen still your Head of State?

*Hurls thermite grenade in the hopes that it will eat through Shep's suit*

*Shep easily dodges the thermite grenade and pulls out his
legal-in-12-states-for-hunting AK-47*

[Darth Wong]

Then why is the Queen still your Head of State?

Shep, you know perfectly well that we're just humouring the tradition. She has no actual power over our national policy, and we don't pay for her luxuries, unlike the Brits.

*Hurls thermite grenade in the hopes that it will eat through Shep's suit*

*Shep easily dodges the thermite grenade and pulls out his
legal-in-12-states-for-hunting AK-47*

Fuck. No goddamned rifle plate in my flame-retardant suit.
* Grabs uncle's shotgun and hopes for the best *

[Joe]

Do British taxpayers really subsidize the royal family? I thought it was self-sufficient, being the biggest landowner in the world and all.

[Darth Wong]

Do British taxpayers really subsidize the royal family? I thought it was self-sufficient, being the biggest landowner in the world and all.

According to CNN, the British taxpayers still give them $13 million a year in direct handouts, and there's probably a lot more hidden costs associated with managing their bureacracy, security arrangements, etc. The royalty is obscenely wealthy and could easily afford to pay their own way, but they're royals; they don't do that.

After the big Windsor Castle fire a few years ago, the Queen actually expected the taxpayers to pay for the repairs, but backed down in the face of public outcry. The times may finally be a-changing (however slowly) for the British royalty, but it's still an anachronism.

[Stuart Mackey]

Do British taxpayers really subsidize the royal family? I thought it was self-sufficient, being the biggest landowner in the world and all.

According to CNN, the British taxpayers still give them $13 million a year in direct handouts, and there's probably a lot more hidden costs associated with managing their bureacracy, security arrangements, etc. The royalty is obscenely wealthy and could easily afford to pay their own way, but they're royals; they don't do that.

After the big Windsor Castle fire a few years ago, the Queen actually expected the taxpayers to pay for the repairs, but backed down in the face of public outcry. The times may finally be a-changing (however slowly) for the British royalty, but it's still an anachronism.

The former dominions will probably go republican, {Personally I am a Monarchist, republics have no class, no pun intended.}but Britain never will. As to the funding issue, The Monarchy, or rather the Crown Estate actually give the government a tidy profit on the Royals, thanks to King George IV surrendering the income of these estates in return for the civil list {the dozy bugger never could control his spending, see Brighton pavilion}. The crown estate makes something like 160 odd million pounds a year, net.
Also, Windsor castle is a state owned residence, the Queen only owns Balmoral and Sandringham.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Then why is the Queen still your Head of State?

Shep, you know perfectly well that we're just humouring the tradition. She has no actual power over our national policy, and we don't pay for her luxuries, unlike the Brits.

And the Brits make more in tourism then they spend on the Monarchy. It's a fun tradition, with a LOT of side industries.

[Stuart Mackey]

Then why is the Queen still your Head of State?

Shep, you know perfectly well that we're just humouring the tradition. She has no actual power over our national policy, and we don't pay for her luxuries, unlike the Brits.

And the Brits make more in tourism then they spend on the Monarchy. It's a fun tradition, with a LOT of side industries.

Quite apart from the amusing thing that republicans think that being republican somehow makes a country egalitarian. Actually, Strow, If, when Canada goes republican will you make yourself king to hog all the limelight?

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Quite apart from the amusing thing that republicans think that being republican somehow makes a country egalitarian. Actually, Strow, If, when Canada goes republican will you make yourself king to hog all the limelight?

Hey, the demand is there.

[Stuart Mackey]

Quite apart from the amusing thing that republicans think that being republican somehow makes a country egalitarian. Actually, Strow, If, when Canada goes republican will you make yourself king to hog all the limelight?

Hey, the demand is there.

The Queen is deposed! long live King Strow!!!

[C.S.Strowbridge]

The Queen is deposed! long live King Strow!!!

Whoo hoo!

[Steve]

Of course, Canada's arrangement (And New Zealand's, and Belize's, and Australia's....) is pretty good. The Queen is Head of State and ties up those powers, which would be used regularly by a President, because of her unwillingness to act on anything in any independent manner, and the Prime Minister and Legislature run the country in a somewhat tidy arrangement. You guys have to overhaul your party system, that's about it.

And that's going to be hell thanks to a certain French-speaking province that has managed to make itself more hated than France itself.

[Stuart Mackey]

Of course, Canada's arrangement (And New Zealand's, and Belize's, and Australia's....) is pretty good. The Queen is Head of State and ties up those powers, which would be used regularly by a President, because of her unwillingness to act on anything in any independent manner, and the Prime Minister and Legislature run the country in a somewhat tidy arrangement.

Well the Prime Minister, cabinet and the bureaucrats run the country
But the fact of the matter is that the Governor General powers are quite circumscribed, and only the Queen herself could be described as having the full powers. But one thing remains true, the GG or the Queen, Always acts on the Advice of the PM of the day.
I could argue that once parliment was the brake on the executive but now the executive is now paliment there is no brake on its unchecked power to do as it will when it has a majority. of cource I refer to NZ

You guys have to overhaul your party system, that's about it.

Actually, Whats wrong with NZ's party system? I think our electoral sytem, MMP, is ok though, STP might be better.

And that's going to be hell thanks to a certain French-speaking province that has managed to make itself more hated than France itself.

LOL! Quebec even has a bad rep here

[HemlockGrey]

Quebec has all the bad traits of Canada combined with all the bad traits of France. If you can beat General Winter, you should be able to conquer it with a pickup truck and three old bolt-action rifles.

[Crazy_Vasey]

Of course they're socially regressive. They still have a fucking monarchy, for chrissakes!

* dons flame-retardant suit *

Most English people couldn;t give two shits about the royal family either way. Personally I'd sling them out in a heartbeat but the blue rinse brigade will be in the way for a while yet.

[Mr Bean]

So does America, called the Oil Barons.

Hmm lets see Ten Richs people in the US?

Ok.. Oil Baron? First one is Number 13 according to 2001 Fortune(My Latest Copy)

And Gates Can Buy and sell the first twenty Oil Barons on the list twice over

[Kelly Antilles]

So does America, called the Oil Barons.

Hmm lets see Ten Richs people in the US?

Ok.. Oil Baron? First one is Number 13 according to 2001 Fortune(My Latest Copy)

And Gates Can Buy and sell the first twenty Oil Barons on the list twice over

Three of the top 10 are the sons of Sam Walton, aka, Mr. Wal-Mart.

[Mr Bean]

Three of the top 10 are the sons of Sam Walton, aka, Mr. Wal-Mart.

I knew it! Wal-Mart is a secret orginzation to overthrow the American Establishment and take over the world!

[Evil Jerk]

All your human governments are inefficient and corrupt, be they monarchies or constitutional monarchies or oil baron monarchies..
You will all be happier when I take over as overlord of the universe.

[Newtonian Fury]

Walmart is cheap, that's why I like it. But of course they're trying to monopolize.

[Antediluvian]

Three of the top 10 are the sons of Sam Walton, aka, Mr. Wal-Mart.

I knew it! Wal-Mart is a secret orginzation to overthrow the American Establishment and take over the world!

Yep. I used to work for them...and still do, incognito.

(Calls out the Wal-Mart Cashier Assassins on Bean.)