Gay unions of one form or another have become a reality in a great number of European countries. The first country to allow full gay marriage, meaning no legal distinction between heterosexual and homosexual partners, was the Netherlands in 2001. The government had passed a registered partnership law in 1997, but the new law set forth full marriage rights for same-sex couples. The difference between marriage and partnership is often symbolic, as many registered partnership laws confer all the same rights as marriage. Sometimes, however, the differences mean more, as many countries do not allow same-sex partners to adopt children or receive other benefits reserved for marriage. That was the case in the Netherlands and is also often true in countries with federalist political systems where some regions are more accepting of same-sex partnerships than others, since marriage laws tend to be national while civil union laws are often passed by local governments in more liberal regions. This results in federal marriage rights not being accessible to partners with civil unions, as is the case in the United States.From this, it's obvious that you're vastly overstating your case. Secondly, I did not oversate my case, I made a statement specifically about gay marriage, which you attempted to refute by implying that most of the EU has legalized gay marriage. But those three countries are still the only ones legalizing gay marriage. If you meant to talk about the civil partnership laws in some countries (which are not mandated to be recognized EU-wide), then that's what you should have talked about.
Other European countries that have recognized either registered partnerships or gay marriages include Germany, Belgium, Finland, Spain, Portugal, France, Hungary, and Great Britain. Some complications have emerged in the European Union both because not all European countries have adopted these laws and because those who have vary so much from one another. Until 2003, married couples from the Netherlands and Belgium could not travel to other European countries and be recognized as couples. It was also very difficult for citizens of two different European countries to become same-sex spouses. In 2003, however, the EU Parliament established a rule that mandated all EU countries pass laws recognizing the same-sex marriages of citizens in Belgium and the Netherlands, so that people traveling abroad did not lose their marriages or face challenges over the custody of their children. Yet, in a strange twist, there is not yet a rule mandating that the civil partnerships that are maintained by a much larger number of EU countries be recognized abroad. Part of the reason for this is that these laws vary widely. Germany’s registered partnerships, for instance, are much more restrictive than those of Holland or Denmark.
Despite their relative success in Europe, gay unions are still not universally approved of on the continent. A 2003 Gallup poll of the then-15 EU countries showed that roughly 57 percent of the citizens supported gay marriage. Excepting Hungary, all of the European countries with any form of gay partnership laws form a continuous mass on the North half of the continent. While in some countries, such as Belgium, their popular support is wide and deep, in more conservative countries such as Italy and Greece legally recognized same-sex partnerships are still a long ways from realization. One interesting development in more moderate countries has been that civil unions become much more popular after they are enacted. For instance, in 1999 only 49 percent of the French public supported a proposed civil unions law. Two years later, after its enactment in 2000, a full 70 percent supported it. Even many conservative politicians in France now express approval of the law largely because it serves as a defense against the further measure of enacting gay marriage. Jacques Chirac, the center-right French President, has even expressed a desire to expand the rights granted by civil union pacts.
Considering studies that indicate environmental tobacco smoke is harmful to nonsmokers’ health, many on the left support restriction and elimination of smoking in both private and public places where nonsmokers are potentially exposed. The right’s argument is that there is a lack of scientific evidence concerning the adverse health effects associated with environmental tobacco smoke, and that, therefore, such regulations are unduly restrictive of adult smokers’ freedom.And on "Prohibition of Tobacco":
Many on the right believe that the left’s underlying goal is the prohibition of tobacco. The left continues to deny the right’s accusation and emphasizes that it seeks regulation, education, and public health benefits, not prohibition.Specifically with regard to politics and the role of government, from "The Role of Federal and State Governments in Addressing Cigarette-Related Morbidity and Mortality"
While the left generally wants government intervention and supports legislative action to combat the tobacco problem, the right tends to oppose almost all government intervention. Right opposition is grounded in the fear that if the government starts to regulate one area, it will eventually expand into other areas. Although the left often emphasizes that the tobacco issue is unique and that government regulation can be contained, the right believes that the issue of tobacco is no exception, claiming government programs regarding tobacco still threaten individual liberties.Jack_mo's perception is not unique. In both the US and Europe, the majority of opposition to smoking regulation comes from the right. In Scotland, for example, the recent vote in the devolved Scottish Parliament banning smoking in some public places was opposed only by the 17 Conservatives, which does, in spite cross-Atlantic confusions about nomenclature, represent little-c conservative opposition to the ban. This is but one example among far too many to count.
Greater Europe(Emphasis in the quote is mine.)
Gay unions of one form or another have become a reality in a great number of European countries. The first country to allow full gay marriage, meaning no legal distinction between heterosexual and homosexual partners, was the Netherlands in 2001. The government had passed a registered partnership law in 1997, but the new law set forth full marriage rights for same-sex couples. The difference between marriage and partnership is often symbolic, as many registered partnership laws confer all the same rights as marriage. Sometimes, however, the differences mean more, as many countries do not allow same-sex partners to adopt children or receive other benefits reserved for marriage. That was the case in the Netherlands and is also often true in countries with federalist political systems where some regions are more accepting of same-sex partnerships than others, since marriage laws tend to be national while civil union laws are often passed by local governments in more liberal regions. This results in federal marriage rights not being accessible to partners with civil unions, as is the case in the United States.
Other European countries that have recognized either registered partnerships or gay marriages include Germany, Belgium, Finland, Spain, Portugal, France, Hungary, and Great Britain. Some complications have emerged in the European Union both because not all European countries have adopted these laws and because those who have vary so much from one another. Until 2003, married couples from the Netherlands and Belgium could not travel to other European countries and be recognized as couples. It was also very difficult for citizens of two different European countries to become same-sex spouses. In 2003, however, the EU Parliament established a rule that mandated all EU countries pass laws recognizing the same-sex marriages of citizens in Belgium and the Netherlands, so that people traveling abroad did not lose their marriages or face challenges over the custody of their children. Yet, in a strange twist, there is not yet a rule mandating that the civil partnerships that are maintained by a much larger number of EU countries be recognized abroad. Part of the reason for this is that these laws vary widely. Germany’s registered partnerships, for instance, are much more restrictive than those of Holland or Denmark.
Despite their relative success in Europe, gay unions are still not universally approved of on the continent. A 2003 Gallup poll of the then-15 EU countries showed that roughly 57 percent of the citizens supported gay marriage. Excepting Hungary, all of the European countries with any form of gay partnership laws form a continuous mass on the North half of the continent. While in some countries, such as Belgium, their popular support is wide and deep, in more conservative countries such as Italy and Greece legally recognized same-sex partnerships are still a long ways from realization.
It’s generally acknowledged that we lean to the left around here, as do I, but often I am disappointed in what seems to be a dearth of opinions from the right that are well-considered and address the topic at hand. [Not to say the more left-leaning members are saints—I’m certainly not—but (perhaps due to volume alone) I generally don’t have a hard time finding reasonable arguments on that side—and I would hope that is not simply because I agree with them.]
Of course there are intelligent people who are Republicans, and often I want to hear from them to challenge my own assumptions and beliefs. Perhaps it is because I’m more drawn to the hot-button topics that I don’t have a good handle on who they are. Hopefully it is not, as I’ve read before, that they have been driven away from here. And I’m not saying that there are not Republicans here whose opinions I would listen to and respect; it’s just that the ones I encounter or notice more often aren’t particularly good representatives of their side of the issue. Some might find comfort or superiority in that, but I think I’m missing out. So I ask:
(1) Which of our right-leaning members do you feel well represent their side of an issue, offering well-considered opinions and viewpoints yet eschewing rote propaganda, snark, insult, and demonification?
(2) Which of our left-leaning members do you think best do this?
(3) Which of our members do you feel are good about avoiding the left/right dynamic, offering well-considered opinions that could go either way?
Really, this is not an invitation to trade insults. If you want to start a MeTa topic on whose opinion is crap and should be ignored, go right ahead, but don’t pee all over my topic. I’d love to keep it on the positive side here, if we can.
posted by troybob at 4:36 PM on July 19, 2006